ABHITECH ENERGYCON LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5195/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 February 2018AY 2009-103 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 held that since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty does not survive.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition on account of wrong claim of deduction under Section 80-IC and initiated penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) affirmed the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IC,Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI PAWAN SINGH

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Neha Paranjpe
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar
Hearing: 15/02/2018Pronounced: 28/02/2018

O R D E R PER G.S. PANNU, AM :

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-51, Mumbai dated 24.08.2015, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-20, Mumbai dated 12.03.2014 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

In brief, the relevant facts are that the Assessing Officer in the assessment finalised u/s 143(3) of the Act on 26.12.2011 made an addition of Rs.3,18,07,827/- on account of wrong claim of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act and had initiated separately, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.1,08,14,272/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. Even the CIT(A) has affirmed the levy of penalty. Against such a decision of the CIT(A), assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

At the time of hearing, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the quantum proceedings against the disallowance of the claim of deduction u/s 80-IC of the Act has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide its order in dated 13.01.2017. The learned representative also submitted that since the addition, on the basis of which the penalty has been levied u/s 271(1)(c), itself has been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.01.2017 (supra), the penalty does not survive.

4.

The ld. DR did not oppose the factual matrix brought out by the learned representative for the assessee.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions. We find that the addition on the basis of which the penalty proceedings were initiated have been deleted by the Tribunal vide its order dated 13.01.2017. Therefore, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive and is hereby deleted.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th February, 2018.

More judgments on Section 80-IC

All 262 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →