RAKESHKUMAR PATRIA,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1750/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 July 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)1 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 penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) before the disposal of the quantum appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the issue of the correctness of the penalty to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises from a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty amount is Rs. 20,12,620/-. The assessee had a pending quantum appeal challenging an addition of Rs. 70 lakhs, which was the basis for the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was correctly imposed and confirmed, especially when the quantum addition leading to the penalty was still under appeal. Restoration of the penalty issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Hearing: 10.07.2024Pronounced: 18.07.2024

ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2011-2012, arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060756874(1), dated 25.06.2019, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 ITA.No.1750/MUM./2024

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.20,12,620/-; it emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the learned representatives that the taxpayer’s corresponding quantum appeal challenging sec.69A a.dof Rs.70 lakhs made in the course of assessment dated 28.03.2018; had still stated to be pending before the CIT(A). The assessee has also filed the corresponding Form-35 before us to this effect. Faced with this situation and in light of the crucial fact that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed the assessee’s penalty first than keeping the same in abeyance till the disposal of the quantum appeal, we deem it appropriate to restore the instant sole issue of correctness of the consequential penalty back to him for his afresh appropriate adjudication as per law in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

3.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

3 ITA.No.1750/MUM./2024 Order pronounced in the open Court on 18.07.2024

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 →