DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI vs. PANTALOON RETAIL (I) LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
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?
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)
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.
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)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026