DIXIT PROCESSORS,BHIWANDI vs. ITO WD 1(1), KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1797/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 April 2019AY 2009-103 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 held that since the penalty proceedings arose from the assessment order which was set aside, the penalty was not sustainable in law. The penalty was accordingly dropped.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals were filed against penalty orders. The ITAT had previously set aside the quantum assessment orders for the same assessment years and restored them to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the sustainability of penalty when the underlying assessment order has been set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Appellant: Shri. Mukul J. Vora
For Respondent: Shri. D.G. Pansari
Pronounced: 26.04.2019

Heard together (3 matters)

I.T.A. No.1797/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No.1798/Mum/2018
I.T.A. No. 1799/Mum/2018

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

Assessee by : Shri. Mukul J. Vora Revenue by : Shri. D.G. Pansari : 25.4.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2019 O R D E R SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: These appeals arising out of orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune dated 11.12.2017 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12.

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing 938 & 939/Mum/2016 for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 in case titled M/s Dixit Processors vs. Income Tax Officer dated 31.01.2017 has set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restored back to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty in the present case is not sustainable in law.

3.

On the perusal of para no. 12.1 of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT in ITA Nos. 937, 938 & 939/Mum/2016 for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 dated 31.01.2017, we noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT has restored back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

4.

Since the present penalty proceedings were borne out of the assessment order, which has now been set aside to the file of Assessing Officer by the order of the Hon’ble ITAT in the above case, therefore the penalty arising out of the said order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, we drop the penalty. However, the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to examine the imposition of penalty, if any, on the basis of outcome of the quantum addition if any. It is ordered accordingly.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order as to cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.4.2019 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 26.4.2019 SH Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT - concerned 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER,

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 →