POWAI VIHAR DEVELOPERS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3490/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 January 2018AY 2005-063 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 addition on which the penalty was based had been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) does not survive and is deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 55,00,000 on account of unexplained cash credit and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was affirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the primary addition on which it was levied has been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian
For Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar
Hearing: 02/01/2018Pronounced: 31/01/2018

The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A)-24, Mumbai dated 12.02.2016, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2005-06, which in turn has arisen from the order passed by the DCIT, Circle- 10(3), Mumbai dated 30.04.2013 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)(ii) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 10.12.2010 made an addition of Rs.55,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and had initiated separately, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.20,12,587/- 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 addition on account of cash credit has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide its order in dated 04.03.2016. 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 04.03.2016 (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 in dated 04.03.2016. 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 31st January, 2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →