ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. ASHIRWAD LAND P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions under section 69C had already been deleted by a previous Tribunal order. Consequently, the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c) were also deleted as they had no basis.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of penalties levied under section 271(1)(c). The penalties were consequential to additions made by the AO under section 69C.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions under section 69C have been deleted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI SANJAY GARG
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present bunch of appeals relating to different assessees have been preferred by the Revenue agitating the action of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
At the outset, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has brought our attention to the common order of the Tribunal dated 22.03.13 passed in quantum appeals in relation to 67 appeals pertaining to 52 different assessees including the assessees before us in relation to the above captioned appeals. The Ld. A.R. has further submitted that the penalty in the appeals before us was levied in relation to the additions made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. That the matter relating to the above additions travelled to the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide common order dated 22.03.13 (supra) passed in & others has deleted the additions in all the 67 appeals before it, including that of the assessees in the present appeal. Since the quantum additions have already been deleted by the Tribunal, hence the consequential penalty levied by the AO in relating to the above additions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand and the same is accordingly deleted.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- V3 Enterprises PVT LTD vs. The State Of ApAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- Zenith Metaplast(P) Limited vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 1 Nov 2026
- M/S Karo Sambhav Private Limited Through Its Director Mr. Pranshu Singhal vs. Additional/Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Delhi North & Anr.Delhi · 31 Oct 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026