RAJENDRAKUMAR CHAMPALAL JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 29, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 700/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 August 2018AY 2012-133 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 quantum of the assessment had already been deleted in a prior appeal, the penalty arising from that assessment was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order upholding the imposition of penalty. The penalty arose from an assessment order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the sustainability of the penalty when the underlying assessment was deleted.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D”

Before: HON’BLE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Sanghvi, Shri Chaitanya
For Respondent: Shri Chaitanya

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)-52, Mumbai dated 02.11.15 upholding the imposition of penalty.

Rajendra Kumar Champalal Jain, 2. The Ld. AR drawn our attention to the order of Hon’ble ITAT in quantum appeal bearing for AY 2012-33 titled Ravindra Champalal Jain Vrs. ACIT dated 30.11.2016.

3.

On the perusal of para no. 5 of the said order of Hon’ble ITAT, the quantum has already been deleted by allowing the ground of appeal in favour of the assessee. The penalty has borne out of assessment order and since the quantum has already been deleted, 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 while setting aside the order of Ld. CIT(A). It is ordered accordingly.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →