RAMESH SUMERMAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 36, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1936/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 January 2017AY 2001-022 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 the penalty on the cash credit addition would not survive as the addition itself was deleted by the Tribunal in a prior appeal. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2001-02. The penalty was based on disallowance of exemption under Section 54F and assessment of a gift under Section 68. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty on Section 54F but confirmed it on the gift assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition (gift under Section 68) has been deleted by the Tribunal due to lack of jurisdiction under Section 153A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 54F,Section 68,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Ravish Sood(JM)

For Appellant: Ms. Kenyuri Desai
For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Hearing: 11.1.2017Pronounced: 11.1.2017

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the learned CIT(A)-41, Mumbai confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for A.Y. 2001-02.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the disallowance of exemption claimed u/s. 54F of the Act and also on assessment of gift of ` 2.25 crores received by the assessee u/s. 68 of the Act. The learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied on withdrawal of deduction u/s. 54F of the Act and confirmed the penalty levied on the assessment of gift received referred above. Learned Counsel submitted that the assessee has challenged the assessment of gift as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act by filing appeal before the Tribunal. She submitted that the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, vide its order dated 28.11.2016 passed in wherein the Tribunal deleted the addition of ` 2.25 crores made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of 2 Shri Ramesh Sumermal Shah the Act on the ground that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction u/s. 153A of the Act to assess the gift u/s. 68 of the Act. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the impugned penalty will not survive in the facts stated above.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative did not contradict the factual aspects presented by learned AR.

4.

Having heard the rival submissions, we agree with the submissions made by learned AR that the impugned penalty on the cash credit addition will not survive, since the addition on which the penalty was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied on the cash credit referred above.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 11.1.2017.

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 →