ECHJAY INDUSTRIES P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CC8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6545/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 August 2019AY 2006-072 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that since the additions leading to the penalty levy were deleted in the quantum appeals, the penalty itself did not survive. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and deleted the penalty.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for two assessment years. The assessee argued that the penalty should not survive as the additions on which it was based had been deleted in the quantum appeals.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying additions are deleted in quantum appeals. The validity of reopening for AY 2006-07 was also a related issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood (JM)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Rao
For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Hearing: 22.8.2019Pronounced: 27.8.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 6545/Mum/2017
I.T.A. No. 6546/Mum/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- These are appeals by the assessee directed against order of learned CIT(A) for the respective assessment years. The issue raised is the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as under :- A.Y. 2006-07 Rs. 77,84,390/- A.Y. 2011-12 Rs. 76,83,100/-

2.

At the outset learned counsel of the assessee submitted that the quantum appeals relating to the issues on which penalty has been levied have already been decided in favour of the assessee vide order dated 17.7.2019 in for A.Y. 2006-07 and ITA No. 3801/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2011-12. The learned counsel submitted that for assessment year 2006- 07 the reopening has been quashed by the ITAT. So the additions do not survive. For assessment year 2011-12 the addition by reference to which the penalty has been levied has been deleted by the ITAT. Hence learned counsel prayed that the penalty levied does not survive.

2 M/s. Echjay Industries Pvt.Ltd.

3.

Per contra learned departmental representative did not oppose the proposition submitted by the learned counsel of the assessee.

4.

Upon careful consideration we find ourselves in agreement with the submission of learned counsel of the assessee. Since the additions with reference to which the penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been levied have already been deleted by the ITAT these penalties do not survive. Accordingly we set aside the orders of authorities below and delete the penalty.

5.

In the result the appeals by the assessee stand allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 27.8.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →