MOHAN HOTCHAND KHANCHANDANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 32, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4343/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 March 2018AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders do not survive due to the substantial relief granted in the quantum appeals. The issue of penalty levy was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) were confirmed by the CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee obtained substantial relief in their quantum appeals before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) survives when the underlying additions in the quantum appeal have been substantially reduced 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 SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Ramesh Jiwanani, Ms. Pooja Swaroop
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop

O R D E R Per Bench: These are appeals by the assessee against the respective orders of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by way of this penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, have been confirmed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2009-10.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that subsequent to the levy of penalty in these cases, the quantum appeals of the assessee for all the years in 2 to 4347/Mum/2016 Shri Mohan Hotchand Khanchandani consideration in these cases have been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal by a combined order dated 28.04.2016. By way of this order, the Tribunal had granted substantial relief to the assessee. In the factual background as stated above, we note that the subsequent to the levy of penalty in these cases in the quantum appeals, the assessee has obtained substantial relief from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the penalty order under consideration do not survive. In our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it will be apposite to remit the issue of levy of penalty to the file of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the issue in these appeals is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to consider the issue afresh after taking into account the subsequent order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal mentioned hereinabove. Needless to add, the assessee should be granted adequate opportunity of being heard.

3.

Both the counsel fairly agreed to this proposition.

4.

In the result, these appeals by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. प�रणामतः �नधा�रती क� अपील� सां�यक�य उ�दे�य के �लए �वीकृत क� जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on 22.03.2018 Sd/- Sd/- (Pawan Singh) (Shamim Yahya) �या�यक सद�य / Judicial Member लेखा सद�य / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांक Dated : 22.03.2018

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 →