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)- 36, Mumbai dated 21/08/2015, 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 29/03/2014.
In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following Ground of appeal:-
(Assessment Year : 2006-07) ” On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT deleting the quantum addition without appreciating the fact that the decision of the ITAT deleting the quantum addition has not been accepted and appeal under section. 260A is being filed.”
The respondent assessee is an individual, in whose case an assessment under section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 8/6/2012. In the course of such assessment proceedings, an addition of Rs.2,70,88,882/- was made by invoking section 68 of the Act holding that unsecured credits from five different parties were unexplained. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on such addition, which has since been deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that in the quantum proceedings, the addition itself has been deleted by the Tribunal vide order in Mum/2013 dated 29/04/2015. As a consequence, the CIT(A) has deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act .
Before us, it was a common point between the parties that the order of the Tribunal dated 29/04/2015(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of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the addition, which was originally made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the Act. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) is affirmed and Revenue fails in its appeal. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/07/2016 Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22/07/2016
(Assessment Year : 2006-07) Vm, Sr. PS