DCIT (IT) 4(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIPENDRA BAPALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 435/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 July 2018AY 2006-073 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 were deleted by the first appellate authority and this deletion was upheld by the Tribunal in a prior appeal, the penalties levied based on those additions no longer survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalties was justified.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalties under Section 271(1)(c) by the first appellate authority. These penalties were levied consequent to quantum additions made by the Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

Whether penalties under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum additions have been deleted. The finality of the deletion of quantum additions for the purpose of penalty proceedings.

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

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

1.

Aforesaid appeals by revenue for Assessment Years [AY] 2006-07 & 2007-08 contests separate orders of Ld. first appellate authority qua deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) which has been levied consequent to quantum additions in the hands of the assessee.

ITA Nos.435 & 437/Mum/2017 Dipendu Bapalal Shah Assessment Years-2006-07 & 2007-08 2. The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for the Assessee [AR], Shri Hardik Choksi, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the impugned penalties were deleted by first appellate authority since quantum additions, as made by Ld. AO, were deleted by the same authority, upon further appeal. It has been further submitted that the revenue contested the deletion of quantum additions for both the years without any success before this Tribunal vide 52/Mum/2016 dated 19/06/2018 wherein the revenue’s appeal got dismissed. A copy of the cited order has been placed on record. The same was controverted by Ld. CIT DR, Shri Jai Kumar, by submitting that the quantum additions have not attained finality yet and therefore, the action of Ld. first appellate authority in deleting the penalty was not justified.

3.

We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. The undisputed fact is that the action of Ld. first appellate authority in deleting quantum additions for both the years has been confirmed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid common order for AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 by way of dismissal of revenue’s appeal. The revenue is unable to controvert the fact that the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has not been stayed / reversed, in any manner. This being the position, the impugned penalties do not survive and therefore, Ld. first appellate authority was justified in deleting the impugned penalties.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →