ITO (IT)1(1), MUMBAI vs. PRAFUL CHANDARIA, AHEMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5483/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 November 2016AY 2002-032 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 original addition, on which the penalty was levied, had been set aside by the Tribunal in favor of the assessee, the penalty order could not stand. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty of ₹3.58 crores levied under Section 271(1)(c). The penalty was based on an addition of ₹11.71 crores treated as 'income from other sources' related to a call option agreement.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by a higher appellate authority.

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, “C” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)

For Respondent: Shri C.W. Angolkar
Hearing: 10.11.2016Pronounced: 10.11.2016

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 28.2.2014 passed by the learned CIT(A)-10, Mumbai deleting the penalty of ` 3.58 crores levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2002-03.

2.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the amount of ` 11.71 crores assessed by him under the head ‘income from other sources’ in respect of the amount received by the assessee pursuant to call option agreement. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the above said amount is not assessable as per Indo-Singapore DTAA. In the result, the impugned addition has been deleted by the Tribunal

2 Mr. Praful Chandaria in assessee’s case, vide its order dated 26.8.2016 passed in and 4717/Mum/2013 (2016) 73 taxmann.com 14).

3.

Since the addition, on which the impugned penalty was levied, has been set aside by the Tribunal the penalty order does not have legs to stand on its own. On this reasoning, we confirm the decision rendered by the learned CIT(A).

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 10.11.2016

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 →