DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PANTALOON RETAIL (I) LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6630/MUM/2012Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2018AY 2007-083 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 quantum additions, against which the penalty was levied, had already been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty itself did not survive. The revenue failed to demonstrate any stay or reversal of the earlier decision by a higher authority.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for Rs.841.50 Lacs. This penalty was imposed against a quantum addition of Rs.25 Crores, which the assessee claimed as capital receipts but the revenue treated as revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum addition has been deleted by the Tribunal.

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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-17 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-17/IT-73/2011-12 dated 29/08/2012 qua deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.841.50 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO vide order dated 03/08/2011. The aforesaid penalty has been levied Pentaloon Retail (India) Ltd. Assessment Year-2007-08 against quantum addition of Rs.25 Crores stated to be received by the assessee from an entity namely Future Media (I) Ltd. and claimed to be not taxable, being capital receipts in nature. The revenue, treating the same as revenue in nature, has added the same to the income of the assessee vide assessment u/s 143(3), order dated 30/12/2009. The Ld. CIT(A), finding the issue to be contentious and debatable, deleted the impugned additions, against which the revenue is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for the Assessee [AR], Ms. Dinkle Hariya, at the outset, drew attention to the fact that the assessee contested the quantum addition with success before this Tribunal vide dated 26/04/2017, a copy of which has been placed on record. The Ld. Departmental Representative [DR] controverted the same by submitting that that the same has not attained finality yet. 3. Upon due consideration, we find that the quantum additions against which the assessee has been saddled with impugned penalty have been deleted by the Tribunal. The revenue is unable to demonstrate, in any manner, that the ratio of the aforesaid decision has been stayed / reversed / over-ruled by any higher judicial authority. In view of the same, the impugned penalty does not survive and therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard.

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 →