EVERSMILE CONSTRUCTION CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 5, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2331/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 October 2016AY 2003-042 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 since the additions made by the AO were not in existence and the demand was deleted, no penalty could be levied. Therefore, the assessee's grounds were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The original addition made by the AO was restored to the AO's file by the Tribunal for further proceedings.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) could be sustained when the underlying additions were set aside and restored to the AO.

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, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji
For Respondent: Shri A.K. Kardam
Hearing: 26.10.2016Pronounced: 26.10.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 26.10.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 7.4.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-36, Mumbai dated 10.2.2014 for the assessment year 2003-2004. In this appeal, the only issue involved is the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and mentioned that in the regular assessment, AO made addition of Rs. 1.7 Crs vide para 7 of the assessment order and this issue was eventually restored to the file of the AO vide para 7 of the order of the Tribunal in (2003- 2004), dated 5.7.2016 and the appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In this regard, he read out the relevant lines from the said para 7 of the Tribunal’s order (supra) and the same read as under:- “7............Therefore, the order passed by the CIT (A) is wrong against law and facts and is not liable to be sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the order passed by the CIT (A) in question and restore the file before the AO to provide an opportunity to cross examine Shri Ashok H. Pamani and pass the fresh order in accordance with law.

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 →