MAYA ENTERTAINMENT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 16(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4932/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 March 2018AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the additions/disallowances, which formed the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal. Therefore, the penalty order could not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions/disallowances made in the quantum assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions/disallowances 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, BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMARShri Ram Tiwari (DR) PER PAWAN SINGH:

For Appellant: Ms Rutuja Pavar (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Hearing: 19.03.2018Pronounced: 19.03.2018

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 7098/Mum/2013
ITA No. 4932/Mum/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee under section 253 of Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai, [for short the ld. CIT(A)] dated 13.06.2016 for Assessment Year 2007-2008 which in turn arises from the order of penalty order levied by Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2015.

2.

At the outset of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised in the present appeal is covered in favour of assessee as the disallowances/addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied by assessing officer, has been deleted by the Tribunal in appeal on quantum assessment in dated 28.02.2017.

1.

M/s Maya Entertainment Ltd. 3. On going through the order of Tribunal in dated 28.02.2017, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue conceded the addition/disallowances on the basis of which the penalty was levied by Assessing Officer has been deleted by Tribunal.

4.

We have considered the submission of the parties and perused the order of penalty and the order passed by Tribunal in dated 28.02.2017. We have noted that the Tribunal has deleted the addition/disallowances on account of depreciation of software, depreciation on fixed assets and prior period expenses vide order dated 28.02.2017 in ITA No. 7098/Mum/2013. Considering the fact that the addition/disallowance on the basis of which the penalty was levied has been deleted, the order of penalty passed by assessing officer would not survive. In the result, the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 26.03.2015 is set-aside.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th day of March 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 →