Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI G.S.PANNU& SHRI AMARJIT SINGH.
ORDER PER G.S.PANNU, A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the Revenue pertaining to assessment year 2006-07 is directed against an order passed by CIT(A)- 13, Mumbai dated 19/03/2015 which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 28/03/2014.
In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following Ground of appeal:-
“On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.31,30,313/- merely on the ground that the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, instead of deciding the appeal on merits, because the penalty proceedings are separate from the assessment proceedings.”
In this case, the respondent assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is, inter-alia, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of garments and bicycle and other items. In the assessment finalized under section 143(3) of the Act dated 15/12/2008, one of the additions made to the returned income was on account of disallowance of long term capital loss on sale of preference shares of M/s. PAKS Veterinary Drugs Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the tax sought to be evaded on the above stated income. By way of the impugned order, the CIT(A) has deleted the levy of penalty on the ground that in the quantum assessment proceedings, the impugned disallowance made by the Assessing Officer has since been set-aside by the Tribunal vide its order in dated 3/02/2015. Against such a decision, Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, it was a common point between the parties that the order of the Tribunal dated 03/02/2015(supra) continues to hold the field and, therefore, no error can be found in the order of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act as the addition made by the Assessing Officer itself does not survive Thus, on this aspect, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed and Revenue fail in its appeal.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.