DCIT IT 3 3 2 MUMBAI , AIR INDIA BUILDING vs. AMRITA JHAVERI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3636/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2024AY 2007-08Bench: PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member), SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (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 quantum assessment orders were quashed, the penalty orders levied based on those assessments cannot survive. Therefore, the deletion of penalties by the CIT(A) was upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee had a foreign bank account which was not disclosed to Indian tax authorities. Reassessment proceedings were initiated, leading to additions to income and subsequent penalty orders. The ITAT had previously quashed the reassessment orders as null and void.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying assessment order is quashed as null and void.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: AND SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JM

For Appellant: Shri. Ashwin Damania
For Respondent: Shri. Anil Sant (SR. DR.)
Hearing: 24.04.2024Pronounced: 13.05.2024

is filed for A.Y. 2006-07 and A.Y. 2007-08, against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-55, Mumbai [the learned CIT (A)] dated 24th July, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 30th September, 2015, by the

2.

The facts for both the years are identical. Therefore, the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. The grounds are also identical because the quantum of penalty wherein for A.Y. 2007-08, the penalty is ₹2,46,84,679/- and for A.Y. 2006-07, the penalty amount is ₹2,08,72,373/-, quantum appeal of the assessee were allowed by common order of the IT 80 dated 9/05/2023.

3.

Brief facts of the case shows that in case of the assessee information was received by Government of India, from French Government under DTAA about having foreign bank account in HSBC Private Bank, Geneva, which are not disclosed to the Indian Tax Authorities. On the basis of the above information, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice under Section 148 of the Act on 12th March, 2014, which culminated into an assessment order on 31st March, 2015, at a total income of ₹2,27,36,790/- being added in the hands of the assessee. Based on the assessment proceedings, the penalty notices were issued on 31st March, 2015, for concealment of income. Subsequent to that penalty orders were passed on

5.

The learned Departmental Representative supported the order of the learned Assessing Officer levying the penalty but also agreed that ITAT has passed the order in for A.Y. 2006-07, and ITA No.6096/Mum/2016, for A.Y. 2007-08, wherein the reassessment proceedings are quashed and quantum additions are deleted. 06. The learned Authorized Representative submitted the copy of the order of ITAT dated 9th May, 2023, for both the above assessment years and therefore, stated that when the quantum addition has been deleted, the penalty does not survive.

7.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that

8.

In the result, all the grounds of both these appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13.05.2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →