DILIP N YAGNIK,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(2)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1408/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 September 2016AY 2006-073 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 quantum appeal related to the assessment had been restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, the basis for the penalty no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty order could not survive.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) re-assessed the assessee's income by changing the head of income for share transactions from business to capital gains, leading to additions and disallowance of business loss. Subsequently, a penalty was imposed under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying assessment order on which it is based has been set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Sharma
For Respondent: Shri K.C. Kanojia

Captioned appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 3.12.2014, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)–28, Mumbai, confirming imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006-07.

2.

Brief facts are, assessment in the case of assessee was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 27.10.2008, determining total income of ` 1,45,330, as against the declared loss of ` 6,10,970. The 2 Shri Dilip N. Yagnik variation in the total income determined by the A.O. was as a result of additions made the A.O. changing the head of income relating to share transaction from the head income from business and profession as claimed by the assessee to capital gain, as a result, the business loss claimed by assessee was disallowed. Being aggrieved, ass preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and being unsuccessful there, went in further appeal before the Tribunal. During the pendency of assessee’s appeal, A.O. initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by issuing a show cause notice and ultimately passed an order on 29.3.2013, imposing penalty of ` 1,92,960 u/s 271(1)(c). Being aggrieved of the penalty order, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A).

3.

The CIT(A), however, confirmed the imposition of penalty. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. At the outset, the A.R. submitted before us that the quantum appeal filed by the assessee arising out of the assessment proceedings in the mean while has been heard and disposed off by the Tribunal by restoring the matter to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. He, therefore, submitted, there being no assessment as on date the penalty order passed cannot also survive. D.R. has agreed to the aforesaid factual position. On a perusal of the order dated 24.6.2016,

3 Shri Dilip N. Yagnik passed in ITA no.99/Mum./2011, we have noted that while deciding assessee’s quantum appeal, the Tribunal has restored all the issues pertaining to the additions made by the A.O. back to his file for fresh adjudication. Thus, the additions / disallowance on the basis of which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed being no longer in existence, the order passed imposing penalty 271(1)(c) cannot survive. Accordingly, we delete the penalty imposed. However, it is open to the A.O. to initiate penalty proceedings afresh, if warranted, after completion of the assessment in pursuance to the directions of the Tribunal.

5.

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27.10.2016

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 →