DCIT CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CASCADE HOLDINGS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1622/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions by the Assessing Officer, which led to the penalty, were deleted in the prior appeals, the penalty itself could not be sustained. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the deletion of penalties under section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A) for Assessment Years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The Tribunal had previously deleted additions made by the Assessing Officer for these years, which were the basis for the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the additions leading to the penalty have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Dharmesh Shah &
Hearing: 20/06/2024Pronounced: 24/06/2024

PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

The Revenue has filed these appeals challenging the orders passed by learned CIT(A)-52, Mumbai and they relate to the Assessment Years2012-13 and 2013-14. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in these two years.

2.

The learned A.R submitted that the assessee hadchallenged the quantum assessment orders passed for these two years by filing appeals before the learned CIT(A) and thereafter before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has since passed orders for the years under consideration in 6768 &6769/Mum/2018 against the cross appeals field by the parties on 16/03/2020. Consequent to the passing of orders by the Tribunal, the additions made by the Assessing Officer stood deleted in both the years. The learned A.R submitted that the learned CIT(A) has appreciated this fact and accordingly found that the returned income of the assessee came to be assessed by the Assessing Officer in the consequential orders passed by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, in the absence of any addition, the learned CIT(A) held that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained.Accordingly he deleted the penalty in both the years.

3.

The ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue has challenged the orders passed by the Tribunal in the quantum assessment proceedings before Hon’ble High Court and hence, the Revenue is required to pursue these penalty appeals to keep the matter alive.

4.

We heard the parties and perused the record. The fact would remain that the additions made by the Assessing Officer, on which impugned penalty was levied by the AO in both these years has since been deleted by the Tribunal. It is not shown to us that the orders so passed by Tribunal has been stayed by Hon’ble High Court. Accordingly, under the above discussed facts, the impugned penalty orders will not survive. Accordingly, we are of the view that orders passed by learned CIT(A) does not call for any interference and uphold the same in both the years.

5.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th June, 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 →