ZENITH GLOBAL CONSULTANT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3729/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 August 2016AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the penalty is an offshoot of the quantum addition, and the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty appeal should also be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's quantum appeal had been remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the assessee's inability to appear.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty appeal should be remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the remand of 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 “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh,

For Appellant: Shri Isha Sekhri, Shri Ajay Pratap Singh-DR
Hearing: 08/08/2016

"नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Isha Sekhri Shri Ajay Pratap Singh-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by 01/08/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing 08/08/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date of Order: आदेश / O R D E R The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 26/03/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act) amounting to Rs.40,44,549/- disregarding letter dated 05/03/2013 and further by passing an ex-parte order, thereby overlooking the fact that noticed was not received by the assessee due to change in address from Ghatkopar to Bandra.

2.

During hearing, Ms. Isha Sekhri, ld. counsel for the assessee contended that on quantum addition, the Tribunal vide order dated 31/05/2016 (ITA No.2920/Mum/2013) remanded the matter back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication as the assessee, due to bona fide reasons, could not appear before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). The ld. counsel also furnished the copy of the order of the Tribunal. It was pleaded that this penalty appeal may also be sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). On the other hand, the ld. DR, Shri Ajay Pratap Singh, defended the imposition as well as confirmation of penalty but had no objection if the penalty appeal is also sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

2.1. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. I find that the Tribunal vide order dated 31/05/2016 remanded the quantum appeal to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication with a direction to provide fair and adequate opportunity to the assessee. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR. Considering the totality of facts and also that the penalty is offshoot of quantum addition, which has been sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), in all fairness, I am of the view that the penalty appeal deserves to be sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) as the outcome of the quantum addition will decide the fate of the penalty. Thus, the penalty appeal is also remanded back to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. The assessee be given opportunity of being heard with further liberty to furnish evidence, if any, in support of its claim, consequently, this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

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 →