AMEETA D KAPUR,MUMBAI vs. \U005CU005CU00CCTO 21(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4286/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2017AY 2003-042 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned penalty order was unsustainable in law, considering the previous order that remanded the quantum appeal. However, the AO was permitted to initiate penalty proceedings during the remanded proceedings.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) for assessment year 2003-2004. The assessee pointed to a previous Tribunal order that had remanded the quantum appeal for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty levied when the underlying quantum appeal was remanded for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal considered whether the penalty could stand independently of the remanded quantum 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, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh / Neha
Hearing: 22.03.2017Pronounced: 29.03.2017

अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Jitendra Singh / Neha Paranjape प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Ms. Beena Santosh, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 22.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.03.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.6.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-38, Mumbai dated 31.3.2016 for the assessment year 2003-2004.

2.

The solitary issue raised in this appeal relates to the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought my attention to the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeal vide for AY 2003- 2004, dated 15.06.2016 and mentioned that vide para 3 (on pages 2 and 3) of the said order (supra), the matter was remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the penalty levied, which is the subject matter of the present appeal, has no legs to stand. 3. On hearing both the parties and on perusal of the said order of the Tribunal (supra), I find, the impugned penalty order is unsustainable in law considering the said decision of the Tribunal (supra). Accordingly I order. However, AO is free to initiate the penalty proceedings as per the law during the remanding proceedings to

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 →