STONE SHIPPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT RG 12(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1225/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2016AY 2004-052 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 reassessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalty order was rendered invalid.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was levied in connection with disallowed shipment and ad-hoc expenses during reassessment.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty order when the underlying reassessment proceedings were quashed. The tribunal considered whether the penalty could sustain if the basis for its imposition was legally flawed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Haresh G. Buch
For Respondent: Shri Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Hearing: 13.12.2016Pronounced: 16.12.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 13.12.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 24.2.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-23, Mumbai dated 2.12.2013 for the assessment year 2004-2005.

2.

In this appeal, assessee raised the solitary issue in connection with the penalty order of the AO passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. AO levied the penalty of Rs. 25,23,331/- in connection with shipment expenses and ad-hoc expenses disallowed in the re-assessment made u/s 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, dated 18.12.2009. 3. Bringing our attention to the order of the Tribunal in quantum appeals vide & 3455/M/2011 and others (AYs 2004-05 to 2008-2009), dated 26.4.2016, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said assessment order for the AY 2004-05 is held bad in law. In this regard, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to paras 7 to 7.3 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra) and read out the contents from paras 7.2 and 7.3 of the said order.

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 →