ACIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI vs. ROBERT MCLEAN & CO. LTD, KOLKATTA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4398/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 April 2017AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the penalty order to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was done because the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been set aside and restored to the AO for reconsideration.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was imposed based on a quantum addition that was subsequently restored back to the Assessing Officer (AO) by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum addition has been set aside and restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

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, “D”, BENCH MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM

For Appellant: Shri Haresh Kenia
For Respondent: Smt. Vinita J Menon, Shri Haresh Kenia
Hearing: 04/04/2017Pronounced: 06/04/2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A)- 47, Mumbai dated 11/05/2015 for the A.Y.2009-10 in the matter of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. At the outset, learned AR placed on record the quantum order of the Tribunal dated 17/08/2015 wherein quantum addition was restored back to the file of the AO after having the following observation:- 6. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT(A) have overlooked the fact that sufficient opportunity of being heard, at any stage of proceedings, was not given and the tax authorities have erred in coming to a conclusion that there was cessation of liability, overlooking the claim of the assessee that the main director was under judicial custody since March, 2011 and the regular staff of the assessee have already left due to peculiar circumstances of Robert Mclean & Co. Ltd., the case; thus, the assessee could not furnish all the details before the Assessing Officer. Ld. Counsel now submits that the assessee is willing to cooperate with the Assessing Officer and prepared to furnish the details such as PAN etc., of the parties and other requisite details to prove that the current liability and unsecured loan cannot be treated as having been ceased to exist in the year under consideration. Similarly with regard to the normal expenditure incurred for running day-today business, the learned counsel requested for one more opportunity so as to furnish the details by contending that even written submissions and basic details furnished were not properly verified by the tax authorities. Learned Departmental Representative has not raised any serious objection with regard to setting aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification. Needless to observe that the burden is upon the assessee to prove that the liabilities did not cease to exist and day-to-day expenditure was incurred by the assessee for running skeleton business.

7.

Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in the interest of substantial justice, we set aside the orders passed by the tax authorities and direct the Assessing Officer to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to furnish all required details at the earliest before the Assessing Officer so as to enable him to arrive at a proper finding on the issues which are in dispute. We may reiterate that the primary burden is upon the assessee to prove that the liabilities are still in existence. 8, With these remarks, we hereby set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer and treat the appeal as allowed for statistical purposes.

3.

In view of the quantum order for which penalty has been imposed have already been restored back by Tribunal, we also restore back the penalty order to the file of the AO for deciding afresh after passing the quantum order as per direction of Tribunal in its order dated 17/08/2015.

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 →