ITO 9(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. GLOWSHINE BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P.LTD, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the AO was deleted in the quantum appeal by the Tribunal and affirmed by the High Court, the penalty order does not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The assessee declared nil income after claiming brought forward loss. The AO made additions on account of short-term capital gain and initiated penalty proceedings. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, which the revenue appealed.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the addition on which it was based has been deleted in the quantum appeal and affirmed by the High Court.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)
O R D E R
PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-16, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee against penalty order passed u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) and deleted the penalty.
In this case, the appellant company filed its return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 declaring nil income after claiming brought forward loss of Rs. 38,021/-. However, the AO determined the total income at Rs. 15,93,68,479/- by making addition on account of short term capital gain on sale of immovable property and accordingly initiated penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for concealment of income. An order u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act was 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 accordingly passed imposing penalty of Rs. 3,15,32,720/-. The addition made by AO was confirmed by the CIT (A) in the first appeal. However, the penalty was deleted by the ITAT, Mumbai vide order dated 14.04.2014. The assessee challenged the penalty order before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty on the ground that in quantum appeal, the ITAT has deleted the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). The revenue is in appeal against the said order by raising the following ground.
Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271 (1)(c) whereas the AO rightly treated the short term capital gain on sale of development rights in the year of the transaction?
At the very outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Tribunal has deleted the addition in quantum appeal and the order of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in ITA No 1756 of, the penalty order does not survive. Therefore, the appeal of the revenue is liable to be dismissed.
The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) did not controvert the facts submitted by the Ld. counsel for the assessee.
We have carefully perused the orders passed by the authorities below as well as the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench and the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The coordinate Bench of the Tribunal has deleted the addition sustained by the CIT (A) in vide order dated 11.04.2014. The appeal against the findings of the coordinate Bench aforesaid has been affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Income Tax Appeal No. 1756 of 2014 dated 09.04.2017. Under these circumstances, the impugned penalty order does not survive in this case. We accordingly uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the sole ground of appeal of the revenue .
3 Assessment Year: 2009-10 In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010 is dismissed.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026