LONGULF TRADING (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3671/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 March 2017AY 2003-043 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the addition on which the penalty was based had already been deleted in the assessee's own case by a previous order, the penalty itself did not survive.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was confirmed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2003-04.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can survive if the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal.

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, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay R. Parikh
For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav

Date of Hearing -06.03.2017 Date of Order – 07.03.2017 O R D E R PER: SHAMIM YAHYA This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of Ld. CIT-A dated. 07.02.2014 and pertains to assessment year 2003-04, whereby Ld.- CIT-A has confirmed the penalty levied u/s. 271(1) (C) amounting the Rs. 5 lakh.

2.

At the outset in this case Ld. Counsel submitted that the addition with regard to which the penalty has been levied has already been deleted by this Tribunal in assessee own case in and ITA no. Longulf Trading India Pvt. Ltd, ITA no.3671/Mum./2014 2530/Mum/2010 vide order dated 02.03.2016. Hence Ld. Counsel submitted that since the addition has already been deleted, the penalty levied with regard to the above does not survive.

3.

Ld. DR did not dispute the above proposition. Accordingly, since the addition has been deleted the ITAT the penalty based upon that addition doesn’t survive. Hence we set aside order of authorities below and delete the levy of penalty.

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 →