TATA MOTORS LTD ( FORMERLY KNOWN AS TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LTD),MUMBAI vs. JCIT (OSD) 2 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6527/MUM/2009Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 January 2017AY 1998-993 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?

Since the addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted in the quantum proceedings, the penalty itself has no basis. Therefore, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee was levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for disallowance of depreciation on leased assets. The quantum appeal for the same issue had already been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition on which it is based has been deleted in the quantum appeal.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “H”, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Dinesh Vyas, AR
For Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi Nigshen
Hearing: 17.01.2017Pronounced: 17.01.2017

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 14.10.2009, passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-6, Mumbai in relation to the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for the A.Y. 1998-99.

2.

The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty on amount of disallowance of depreciation of Rs.5,99,304/- on the assets given on lease to the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Before us, the learned senior counsel, Shri Dinesh Vyas, submitted that in the quantum proceedings, this Tribunal in vide order dated 06.01.2017 has deleted the said disallowance of depreciation of leased assets. From the said order he pointed out that this issuehas been elaborately discussed by the Tribunal while deciding the appeal for A.Y. 1997-98, vide para 5 to 5.3, which has been followed in A.Y. 1998-99. Whence the addition itself stands deleted the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has no legs to stand.

3.

The learned DR also admitted that in quantum appeal this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee.

4.

After considering the aforesaid submissions and on perusal of the Tribunal order in the assessee’s own case in the quantum proceedings, we find that the issue of disallowance of depreciation of leased assets has been decided in favour of the assessee and depreciation has been allowed. Accordingly, the penalty levied on said addition/disallowance stands deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this17thday of January 2017

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 →