DCIT CENT. CIR. 4(2), CENT. RANGE - 4, MUMBAI vs. RED CHILLIES ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2744/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2018AY 2009-103 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 additions on which the penalty was levied were already deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty could not be sustained. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied on additions made during the assessment, which were later deleted by the ITAT in a separate appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the additions forming the basis of the penalty have 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, “D” 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] 2009-10 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-52 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-52/IT/DC-CC-4(2)/158/2013-14 dated 28/01/2016 qua deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.87.89 Lacs. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Red Chillies Entertainment Private Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 Commissioner of Income Tax-29, Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) wherein the assessee was saddled with certain disallowances. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated in the quantum assessment order and the assessee has been saddled with impugned penalty of Rs.87.89 Lacs vide order dated 27/08/2013. The same has been levied on account of additions of Rs.239.39 Lacs under Rule 9A and another addition of Rs.19.19 Lacs, being loss from abandoned projects as claimed by the assessee during impugned AY.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A), vide impugned order dated 28/01/2016, after considering the factual matrix has deleted the impugned penalty on merits, against which the revenue is in further appeal before us.

3.

The Ld. Auhtorized Representative for assessee [AR], Shri Hiro Rai, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the assessee has successfully contested both the additions before this Tribunal vide order dated 31/05/2016 and therefore the penalty under question do not survive. A copy of the cited order has been placed on record. The same was controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative [DR], Shri Ram Tiwari by submitting that the revenue has not accepted the above decision and therefore, the quantum additions have not finality.

4.

We have carefully heard the rival contentions and perused relevant material on record. It is undisputed fact that both the additions against which the penalty has been levied has been deleted by the Tribunal and there is nothing on record to suggest that the aforesaid decision has been stayed / reversed, in any manner, by any higher judicial authorities. Therefore, as of now, the impugned penalty could not be sustained and Red Chillies Entertainment Private Limited Assessment Year-2009-10 we see no reason to interfere with the order of Ld. first appellate authority, in this regard. 5. Resultantly, the revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th July, 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 →