GTC INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO CEN CIR IX RG -II, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the additions on which penalties were levied had been deleted by a Special Bench of the ITAT. Therefore, the penalties were liable to be deleted. The matter of reconciliation of the addition quantum in one year was restored to the AO.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed penalty orders levied under Section 271(1)(c) for three assessment years. The penalties were based on additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding premium realized on cigarette sales and suppressed production.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying additions have been deleted by a higher tribunal. The quantum of addition for penalty calculation was also a point of contention.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Ramlal Negi (JM)
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
O R D E R PER BENCH:-
All these three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment years 1984-85, 1985-86 and 1986-87.
The Ld Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessing officer has levied penalty in all the three years on the addition made by him towards premium realised on sale of Cigarettes, i.e., the AO took the view that the assessee has realised premium over and above the selling price and did not account for the same. The AO also levied penalty on the addition made by him in all the three years towards premium realised on sale of Cigarettes. The Ld A.R further submitted that the above said issue in all the three years was referred to a Special bench and the Hon’ble Special bench has since deleted the addition made by the AO in all the three years, vide its order dated 07-03-2017 passed in ITA No.1055/Bom/94 and ITA No.1056/Bom/94 relating to AYs 1984-85 to 1986-87 respectively. Accordingly he submitted that the penalty levied in all the three years on the addition made towards premium realised on sale of Cigarettes is liable to be deleted.
The Ld A.R further submitted that the AO has levied penalty on the addition of Rs.10.00 crores made by him in AY 1984-85 towards suppressed production. He submitted that the Ld CIT(A) has deleted this addition and the order of Ld CIT(A) on this issue has since been confirmed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 06-03-1991 passed in ITA No.4976/Bom/88. Accordingly he submitted that the penalty levied by the AO in AY 1984-85 on the above said addition of Rs.10.00 crores is liable to be deleted.
The Ld D.R, on the contrary, submitted that the addition considered by the Hon’ble Special bench of ITAT towards premium realised on sale of Cigarettes was Rs.21.36 crores, whereas the AO has levied penalty on this addition by taking the quantum of addition at Rs.22.73 crores. Accordingly she submitted that the penalty can be deleted only to the extent of relief granted by the Special bench.
In the rejoinder, the Ld A.R submitted that the AO initially made an addition of Rs.21.36 crores from which he reduced a sum of Rs.1.00 crores towards expenses. Subsequently the AO passed a rectification order u/s 154 of the Act on 29.06.1987, wherein he corrected a totalling error to the tune of Rs.2.36 crores. Accordingly the addition on account of premium realised on sales worked out to Rs.22.73 crores finally and the penalty was levied on that amount. Since the Special bench of Tribunal has held that no addition could be made on account of premium realised on sale of cigarettes, the entire amount of penalty is liable to be deleted.
We heard the rival contentions and perused the record. From the orders passed by Hon’ble Special bench/division bench of ITAT, we notice that the additions, on which the penalty has been levied in all these three years, have since been deleted. In AY 1984-85, there appears to be confusion about the quantum of addition mentioned in the order passed by Hon’ble Special bench. As submitted by the Ld A.R in the rejoinder, the difference has arisen on account of subsequent rectification order passed by the AO as well as the deduction given towards expenses by the AO in the original assessment order. Since it is only a matter of reconciliation, we restore this matter of reconciliation to the file of the AO. Otherwise, there is merit in the submission of the ld A.R that the Hon’ble Special bench has held that the addition on account of premium realised on sale of Cigarettes is not sustainable. Accordingly we set aside the impugned orders passed by Ld CIT(A) in all the three years under consideration and direct the AO to delete the penalty levied on the additions (subject to reconciliation of the addition in AY 2004-05) made in all the three years.
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026