ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 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 the Revenue's appeals lacked merit. It affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalties for both assessment years. The Tribunal's reasoning was based on the established case law of CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. ([2010] 194 Taxman 387 (Del.) (HC)) and CBDT Circular No. 25/2015 dated 31st December, 2015. These authorities, applicable to the assessment years in question, held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could not be levied when the taxable income computed under normal provisions was less than the book profit computed under Section 115JB. The Tribunal noted that the legislative amendment to Section 271(1)(c) Explanation-4, which might have altered this position, had only prospective effect from 01.04.2016 onwards. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalties was upheld. The assessee's cross-objections were rendered academic. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The appeals by the Revenue and cross-objections by the assessee, Reliance Industries Limited, pertain to assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. They arise from the order of the CIT(A)-57, Mumbai, dated 13.02.2024, which deleted penalties imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had levied penalties amounting to Rs.23,98,83,694/- for AY 2013-2014 and Rs.234,33,40,276/- for AY 2014-2015. The penalties were based on additions/disallowances totaling Rs.77,63,22,635/- related to depreciation on KGD6, transfer pricing adjustments, and depreciation on steel purchases. The CIT(A) deleted these penalties, finding that the assessee's taxable income under normal provisions was less than its book profit computed under Section 115JB.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal and deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the quantum appeal on the issue being pending before the Hon'ble High Court, which could potentially increase the assessee's income under normal provisions? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the penalty proceedings were initiated without proper opportunity of being heard due to unclear notices and requested that they be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the appeal before the CIT(A). Furthermore, the assessee relied on the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion for deleting the penalty, emphasizing that its book profits under Section 115JB were higher than the income computed under normal provisions. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty solely on the ground that the assessee's taxable income under normal provisions was less than its Section 115JB book profits. The Revenue contended that its quantum appeals were pending before higher judicial forums and therefore, the penalty, being consequential, should have been kept in abeyance.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 115JB,Section 143(3),Section 144C(3),Section 92CA(5),Section 154,Section 14A
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
ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 with assessee’s as many cross objection nos.C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024, for assessment years 2013- 2014 & 2014-2015; arise against the CIT(A)-57, Mumbai, Mumbai’s common DIN & Order no.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/
2 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 1060866250(1) dated 13.02.2024 in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”); respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
The Revenue’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.1875/MUM./2024 for the former assessment year 2013-2014 raises the following sole substantive ground :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the assessee's appeal and allowed the grounds of assessee ignoring the fact that the appeal on this issue is pending before Hon'ble High Court, which may lead to increase in the income of the assessee under normal provision ?”
Both the parties next invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion reversing the Assessing Officer’s findings imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.23,98,83,694/- vide order dated 26.03.2022; reading as under:
3 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 4 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 5 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 6 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 7 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 8 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024
9 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 10 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 11 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 12 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 13 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 14 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 15 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 16 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 17 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024
We wish to make it clear that both the parties are very much ad idem during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) has followed the very reasoning in paragraphs 17 to 17.1 to delete the corresponding penalty of Rs.234,33,40,276/- in his impugned order for the latter assessment year 2014-2015. It is evident therefore that the learned CIT(A) has held that the assessee’s taxable income computed under normal provisions is less than it’s sec.115JB book profits in both these assessment years and conclude that the Assessing Officer had erred in law and on facts in levying the consequential penalty(ies) hereinabove inter alia going by CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd., [2010] 194 Taxman 387 (Del.) (HC); CBDT’s circular no.25/2015 dated 31st December, 2015 as well as the legislative amendment to sec.271(1)(c) Explanation-4, applicable in prospectively w.e.f. 01.04.2016. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued in this factual 18 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 backdrop that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in deleting the impugned penalty(ies) for the sole reason of the assessee’s taxable income coming out to be less than it’s sec.115JB book profits. She further stated that the Revenue’s quantum appeals are indeed pending before higher judicial forums and therefore, the impugned penalty(ies) deserve to be kept in abeyance being consequential in nature.
Learned counsel representing the assessee has drawn strong support from the CIT(A)’s above extracted detailed discussion deleting the impugned penalty(ies) for the reason that it’s book profits are more than the income computed under the normal provisions.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no merit in the Revenue’s instant identical sole substantive ground(s). Suffice to say, it has come on record that we are in assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015 wherein case law Nalwa Sons (supra) as well as the CBDT’s circular no.25/2015 have settled the issue in assessee’s favour that the impugned penalty could not be levied in an instance of 19 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 the taxable income computed under the normal provisions turning out to be less than sec.115JB book profits. We wish to make it clear that the legislative amendment in sec.271(1)(c) Explanation-4 carries only prospective effect from 01.04.2016 onwards. Faced with this situation, we affirm the learned CIT(A)’s action deleting the impugned penalty(ies) in both these assessment years. These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 fail in above terms. The assessee’s cross objections C.O.Nos.88 and 89/MUM./2024 stand render academic in very terms. Ordered accordingly.
To sum-up, these Revenue’s twin appeals ITA.Nos.1875 & 1872/Mum./2024 and assessee’s cross objections C.O.Nos.88 & 89/MUM./2024 are dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.07.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [GIRISH AGRAWAL] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumba, Dated10th July, 2024 VBP/- 20 ITA.Nos.1875, 1872 /Mum./2024 & C.O.Nos.88 & 89/Mum./2024 Copy to
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 →- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026