DCIT CC 3(4) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI vs. ZIAUDDIN A. SIDDIQUE, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5712/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 September 2016AY 2006-073 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 quantum appeal was decided in favour of the assessee, the penalty order does not survive. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee contended that the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was decided in their favour.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the addition on which it was based has been deleted in the quantum appeal.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Sanghvi
Hearing: 27/09/2016Pronounced: 27/09/2016

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 09/09/2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-51 Mumbai for the Asst. Year 2006-07 whereby the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on the following effective grounds of appeal:-

1. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating that the penalty proceedings were correctly initiated as per section 271(1)(c) of the Act.”

2. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that at the time of levy of penalty, addition was confirmed and as on date appeal is still pending before the Hon’ble ITAT.”

3.

At the very outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ITAT has decided the quantum appeal for the Asst. year 2006-07 in favour of the assessee therefore, the present appeal is liable to be set aside. The Ld. Departmental Representative did not controvert the contention of the assessee.

4.

We have heard the rival submissions and also perused the material placed on record including the quantum appeal order passed by the coordinate Bench for the assessment year 2006-07. We notice that vide order dated 9.9.2016 the coordinate Bench has decided the quantum appeal filed by the revenue in favour of the assessee by confirming the deletion made by the Ld. CIT(A). Since, the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee, the penalty order does not survive. We therefore, dismiss both the grounds of the appeal of the revenue.

5.

In the result appeal filed by the revenue for the Asst. year 2006-07 is dismissed.

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 →