SVP ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN RG 7, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7109/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 January 2017AY 2009-102 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 noted that the quantum appeal for the year had been set aside by the Tribunal and restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty would not survive independently. The departmental authorities were given liberty to decide the penalty issue after the disposal of the main appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in diamond trading, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer made additions and disallowed expenses, initiating penalty proceedings. The assessee's appeal against the quantum order was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-payment of taxes. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying quantum appeal has been set aside by the Tribunal. The issue of penalty levy was dependent on the final outcome of the main assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 144,Section 249(4),Section 254(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद�य लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य, राजे�� सद�य राजे�� राजे�� केकेकेके अनुसार राजे�� अनुसार अनुसार/ PER Rajendra A.M.- अनुसार Challenging the order dated 10/09/2014 of the CIT (A)-40,Mumbai the assessee has filed the present appeal. Effective ground of appeal is about levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Brief facts : 2.Assessee-firm,engaged in diamond trading, filed its return of income on 30/09/2009, declaring total income at Rs.13.09 lakhs.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s.144 of the Act on 29/12/2011,determining its income at Rs.17,30,53,350/-. While completing the assessment,he made certain additions and disallowed some expenses for want of details.Further, penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) were also initiated. The assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA)against the quantum order,who dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had not paid the taxes due on returned income, as required u/s.249 (4) of the Act. 3.Vide,his order dated 22/03/2013, the AO levied a penalty of Rs. 5.52 lakhs u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.The assessee challenged the penalty order before the FAA. After considering the available material,he held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income, that the AO was justified in levying the penalty.

7109/M/14-SVP Enterprises(09-10)

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 →