RAJIV J MODI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that a previous quantum appeal for the same assessment year and assessee was remanded to the CIT(A) for a speaking order. Therefore, the present penalty appeal, being related to the quantum appeal, was also remanded to the CIT(A) with identical directions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2007-2008. The sole issue was the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
What were the issues?
Whether the penalty appeal should be remanded to the CIT(A) following the remand of the related quantum appeal. The need for a speaking order from the CIT(A) on the penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO
सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 29.06.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2016 आदेश / O R D E R
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:
This appeal filed by the assessee on 24.4.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2007-2008.
The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the levy of penalty of Rs. 6,46,150/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee briefly narrated the facts of the case and filed a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case vide (AY 2007-2008), dated 29.10.2014. Bringing my attention to the said order of the Tribunal (supra), Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that vide the said order, the Tribunal granted relief to the assessee and remanded the issue to the file of the CIT (A) for want of a speaking order. He further submitted that the present appeal and the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is relatable to the said quantum appeal remanded by the Tribunal and therefore, the present appeal may also be remanded with identical directions. 4. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the said order of the Tribunal (supra), I find the quantum appeal was remanded to the file of the CIT (A) with certain directions and therefore, the present appeal, being the penalty relatable to the said quantum appeal, should also be remanded to the file of the CIT (A) with identical directions. I order accordingly and the directions given by the Tribunal in quantum appeal (supra) vide para 4 of its order stand for this appeal also with mutatis mutandis. Thus, the grounds raised
by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd July, 2016.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026