PATHARE PRABHU CO OP HSTG SOC. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3426/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 August 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 the penalty is not sustainable because the addition on which the penalty was based has been deleted by the Tribunal in earlier appeals. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- under Section 271(1)(c) in connection with an addition of Rs. 42,51,430/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable 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, “SMC” BENCH,

Before: SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay Phadke (AR)
For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan (DR)
Hearing: 11.08.2015Pronounced: 17.08.2016

Date of Hearing : 11.08.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 17.08.2016 O R D E R D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: 1. This is the appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 34, Mumbai dated 20.03.2015. This appeal relates to penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. AO levied the penalty of Rs. 12,00,000/- vide his order dated 22.03.2015 in connection with the addition of Rs. 42,51,430/- on account of receipt of site development fund. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the penalty.

Therefore, assessee is in appeal before us.

2.

At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that the said penalty was levied in connection with the addition of Rs. 42,51,430/- and the said addition stands deleted by the Tribunal vide Appeal & 128/Mum/2012 dated 09.10.2015. In support of the same, the counsel brought our attention to the contents of para-14 & 15 of the order of the Tribunal. I find that the appeal on quantum stand allowed in favour of the assessee.

3.

Considering the above subsequent developments, I am of the view that the penalty is not sustainable in view of the deletion of the addition in quantum appeals. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee stand allowed.

4.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of August, 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 →