DCIT 10(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. PARLE AGRO P.LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3173/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 January 2017AY 2009-103 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the additions which formed the basis for the penalty had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order, the penalty was unsustainable in law. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty was therefore confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was related to the recomputation of deduction under Section 80-IB, specifically concerning the allocation of common expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the underlying additions have been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80-IB,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGHShri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR Shri Firoze Andharujina

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR
For Respondent: Shri Firoze Andharujina
Hearing: 04.01.2017Pronounced: 04.01.2017

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 04.01.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2017 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue on 05.5.2016 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 29.2.2016 for the assessment year 2009-2010. In this appeal, Revenue raised the following grounds which read as under:- “The Ld CIT (A) having accepted and confirmed the reworking / recomputation of deduction u/s 80IB by allocation of a portion of common expenses in assessment; hitherto not done by the assessee; has erred on facts and circumstances, in deleting the corresponding penalty without appreciating the fact that such non-allocation of common expenses resulted in excess and undue benefit to the assessee.”

2. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and mentioned that the solitary issue raised by the Revenue in the appeal relates to the CIT (A)’s decision in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case [appeal (AY 2009-2010), dated 29.6.2016] relating to the additions which are of the subject matter of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and read out the following:-

.......Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the under consideration and respectfully following above decision of the Tribunal, delivered in the case of Blue Star (supra), we decide the first ground of the appeal in favour of the assessee.

3.

The above direction was given by the Tribunal in the context of allocation of expenses for the purpose of computing the deduction u/s 80-IB of the Act. In the assessment, AO deferred from the assessee’s way of allocating the expenses which lead to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

On the above factual matrix and on the subsequent developments, Ld Counsel for the assessee argued stating that the CIT (A) deleted the penalty for many reasons and therefore, the Revenue is in appeal against the said decision of the CIT (A). Subsequently, the additions were now stand deleted by the above order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. For this reason also the penalty is unsustainable therefore, Ld AR prayed for confirming the order of the CIT (A).

5.

We heard both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the cited decision of the Tribunal and the relevant material placed before us. On perusal of the said Tribunal’s order (supra), we find merit in the Ld AR’s argument and penalty levied in this case is unsustainable in law. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the decision taken by the CIT (A) is fair and reasonable and it does not call for any interference. Accordingly we order.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th January, 2017 immediately after 7. completion of hearing. (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनांक 04.01.2017 व.नन.स./ OKK , Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अऩीराथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.

More judgments on Section 80-IB

All 340 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80-IB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →