SHREENATH MOTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 5(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3688/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 July 2016AY 2007-083 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 quantum addition was set aside, the penalty order also needed to be set aside. The penalty was to be decided afresh by the AO after the quantum issue was resolved.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c). The quantum addition related to director's remuneration had been set aside by the tribunal and restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been set aside. The issue of director's remuneration was also a part of the original dispute.

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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI R.C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Tiwari, Ms. Rutuja Pawar, Shri Neil Philip
For Respondent: Shri Neil Philip

सुनवाई की तायीख / : 20/07/2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तायीख / : 27/07/2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per R.C. SHARMA, A. M.: This is an Appeal by the Assessee directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 10, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 03.03.2015 for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2007-08, in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act,1961.

2.

At the outset ld. AR placed on record order of the tribunal wherein quantum addition made on account of remuneration to the director was restored back to the 2 M/s. Shreenath Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT file of AO vide order dated 10.09.2015 in ITA No.2087/Mum/2011. We had carefully gone through order of the tribunal wherein addition made on account of remuneration to director was restored back to the file of AO after having following observation: “We have considered this submission of the assessee in the light of the documentary evidence brought on record. We find force in the contention of the ld. Counsel. In the earlier years, the remuneration was disallowed for the reason that Shri Krishna N. Kachalia was pursing the course of MBA. However, this fact is not present in the impugned assessment year. Since there is a material difference in the facts of the case which has been ignored by the Revenue Authorities, in the interest of justice, we restore this issue to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to decide the issue afresh in the light of this materially different fact after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.”

3.

As the quantum itself has been set aside, we set aside the penalty order also to the file of AO for deciding afresh after persisting the order in quantum as per the direction of tribunal. 8. In the result, the appeal of 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 →