DCIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI vs. OLEANDER FARMS P. LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7056/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2005-063 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. Since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were deleted, the penalty itself did not survive.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The additions, on which the penalty was based, had already been deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the additions on which it was imposed have been deleted.

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, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEYAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

Date of Hearing – 08.05.2019 Date of Order – 17.05.2019

O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 25th September2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–50, Mumbai, deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") pertaining to the assessment year 2005–06.

2 M/s. Oleander Farms Pvt. Ltd. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one was present to represent the case on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and the material available on record.

3.

At the outset, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the additions on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") was imposed, in the meanwhile, have been deleted by the Tribunal while deciding the quantum appeal of the assessee. Thus, he submitted, as a result of the order passed by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal, the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive.

4.

On a perusal of the impugned order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that in course of hearing of appeal, the decision of the Tribunal in quantum appeal was filed. On going through the order of the Tribunal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) having found that the additions on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed have been deleted by the Tribunal, held that the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act would not survive. The aforesaid factual position remains uncontroverted. In fact, in ground no.1 of the present appeal, the Revenue has accepted the 3 M/s. Oleander Farms Pvt. Ltd. fact that the additions on the basis of which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed have been deleted by the Tribunal. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deleting the penalty imposed. Grounds are dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.05.2019

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 →