DILSA DISTRIBUTORS COMBINES,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4399/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 August 2016AY 1998-993 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were set aside, the penalty proceedings related to those additions would not survive. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were also set aside to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum appeal for the assessment year 1998-99 had been set aside by the Tribunal for verification.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying additions to income have been set aside for further verification.

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 RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Hearing: 28.07.2016Pronounced: 05.08.2016

आदेश / O R D E R

PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 27.03.2015 pertaining to assessment year 1998-99.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1) On levying of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. i) “On the facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not dropping/deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for Rs. 17,32,500/- by the Ld. Assessing Officer. ii) The Learned Assessing Officer had totally ignored the relevant details, documents/ confirmations & necessary explanations.”

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 →