KUMAR S. TAURANI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1856/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2018AY 2010-114 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 order cannot be sustained. The AO was granted liberty to examine penalty imposition based on the outcome of the fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return and was subsequently levied a penalty. The quantum appeal for the same assessment year had been set aside by the ITAT and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied based on an assessment order that has been set aside is sustainable. The validity of penalty proceedings when the underlying assessment is subject to 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, “H”

Before: HON’BLE SHRI B .R. BASKARAN, AM & HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 23.12.16 for AY 2010-11 on the grounds mentioned herein below:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the penalty of Rs. 3,95,752/- on the ground that the appellant had intentionally concealed taxable income by filing a revised return which was not bonafide, without appreciating the fact that the rent received for the period 01.04.09 to 17.12.09 had been included and offered to tax in the taxable income of the prior assessment year.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or modify the above ground.

2.

At the outset, Ld. AR submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing for AY 2010- 11 in case titled assessee’s own case i.e. Mr. Kumar S. Taurani Vrs. ACIT dated 17.03.17 has set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and restored back to the file of AO for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty in the present case is not sustainable in law.

3.

On the perusal of para no. 7 of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT in for AY 2010-11 dated 17.03.17, we noticed that the Hon’ble ITAT has restored back the matter to the file of AO 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 AO by the order of Hon’ble ITAT in the above case, therefore the penalty arising out of the said order does not stand on its own. In view of the above facts, circumstances and discussion, the penalty order cannot be sustained. However, the AO 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 net result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed with no order as to cost.

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 →