DCIT (IT) 3(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. LLOYDS REGISTER, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4991/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 September 2018AY 2007-082 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, agreeing with both parties, decided to remit the issue of penalty to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, following the earlier remand on merits.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order cancelling a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The original addition that led to the penalty had been remitted by the ITAT for fresh consideration.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) should be sustained when the underlying addition has been remitted for fresh consideration.

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, “L” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sohil J. Shethia
Hearing: 20.08.2018Pronounced: 06.09.2018

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 57, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 21.07.2015 and pertains to the assessment year 2007-08.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised in this case reads as under:

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, whether the ld. CIT(A) is right in cancelling the penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Income Tax Act, 1961, 1961 passed by the A.O.

2. The Appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground(s) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.

3. Upon hearing both the counsel and perusing the records, it transpires that the order of the ld. CIT(A) in this case, wherein the addition was deleted has been M/s. Lloyds Register remitted by the ITAT in vide order dated 18.03.2016 to the tile of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration. In this view of the matter both the counsel agreed that the issue of penalty in this case also deserves to be remitted to the file of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue of levy of penalty also to the file of the ld. CIT(A) in view of the remand on merits by the ITAT.

4.

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.09.2018

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 →