DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. REGENCY HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1916/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2019AY 2011-123 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 held that since the additions forming the basis of the penalty were already deleted by a previous ITAT order in the assessee's own case, the penalty had no survival basis and was liable to be cancelled.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty for AY 2011-12. The penalty was based on additions made in the assessment order.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the additions forming its basis 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

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: HON’BLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SH. G. MANJUNATHA, AM

M/s Regency Hotels DCIT 5(3)(1) Room No. 519, 5th floor, Pvt. Ltd. 101, Prime Corporate Aayakar Bhavan, बिधम/ Park, Near ITC Grand Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Maratha Hotel, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 099 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABCR9766J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant : Shri D. G. Pansari, DR by प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Hari Raheja, AR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30.04.2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

The present Appeal filed by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT (Appeal) – 10, Mumbai dated 22.12.17 for AY 2011-12. M/s Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

2.

At the very outset Ld. AR drawn our attention to the order of Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing for AY 2011-12 dated 16.08.17 in assessee’s own case, wherein the additions have already been deleted.

3.

On perusal of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT, we find that the addition has already been deleted by allowing the ground of appeal

in favour of the assessee by holding that assessee had set up its business during the year and therefore had incurred legitimate expenses, therefore the same were allowed. This order referred by assessee has attained finality as revenue has not placed on record any material to show that appeal against the said order dated 16.08.17 has been filed before Hon’ble High Court. The penalty in the present case was borne out from the additions made in the order of assessment and since the additions have already been deleted by ITAT, therefore there remains no basis at all for levying penalty and hence in such a case no penalty can survive and is thus liable to be cancelled. On this proposition, we rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. C. Builder & another vrs. ACIT 265 ITR 562. M/s Regency Hotels Pvt. Ltd.

4. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to delete the penalty. It is ordered accordingly.

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 →