THEORY M INTERACTIVE P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 9(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3088/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 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 since the entire assessment was restored to the Assessing Officer, the penalty proceedings should also be restored to the Assessing Officer for passing necessary orders after the consequential assessment is completed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum assessment proceedings had been set aside by the Tribunal and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order can survive when the underlying assessment proceedings have been set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.

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 C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR

For Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar
Hearing: 08.08.2016Pronounced: 08.08.2016

आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-20, Mumbai dated 20.02.2013 in sustaining the penalty order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2006- 07.

2.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal filed by the assessee in quantum proceedings has been set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, therefore, penalty order will not survive. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in of 2011 dated 12.11.2014 on record.

3.

The Ld. Departmental Representative has no serious objection in remitting the penalty proceedings.

4.

On hearing both the sides and also perusing the order of the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, it is observed that the whole assessment has been set aside by the Co-ordinate Bench since assessment was completed ex-party without proper opportunity to the assessee. We also find that additional evidences have also submitted by the assessee in respect of the additions made in the quantum assessments. In the circumstances, the Co-ordinate Bench restored the assessment to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Therefore, since the entire assessment has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, we restore the penalty proceedings also to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall pass necessary orders after completion of the consequential assessment.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 8th 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 →