Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA
आदेश ORDER �ी अिमत शु�ला, �या स: PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against impugned order dated 10.01.2014, passed by CIT(A)-30, Mumbai in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2007-08.
The assessee is mainly aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs.26,25,651/- on account of disallowance of Rs.48,49,600/- claimed by the assessee on payment of professional services rendered by M/s Nova Corporate Services Pvt Ltd.
2 �वजन M/s Vision ITA 2377/Mum/2014 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel submitted that in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal has deleted the addition, therefore, penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) on such a disallowance cannot be sustained.
The Ld. DR also admitted that, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.
In view of the aforesaid fact that, in the quantum proceedings, the Tribunal vide order dated 13.04.2016 in has dealt this issue in detail and has deleted the said addition therefore, the entire basis of levying the penalty goes. The final conclusion of the Tribunal in the quantum order deleting the addition reads as under:-
“4.4.3 We find that the factual matrix of the assessee’s in the case on hand to be similar to the facts of the above mentioned cases and therefore respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2013) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) and of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Mundra Port and Sez Ltd. (2014) 45 taxmann.com 381 (Guj) we hold in favour of the assessee and direct the AO to delete the disallowance of Rs.48,49,624/- claimed by the assessee as payment for professional services rendered by Nova Corporate Services P. Ltd. and consequently allow the assessee’s claim. Assessee’s grounds raised at S.No.
1. (‘a’ to ‘e) is allowed.’”
Accordingly, penalty levied on such disallowance has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
3 �वजन M/s Vision ITA 2377/Mum/2014 Order pronounced in the open court on 7th July, 2016 Sd/- Sd/- (अशवनी तनेजा) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (ASHWANI TANEJA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 7th July, 2016 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) –30, Mumbai. 4) The CIT–19, Mumbai 5) िवभागीय �ितिनिध “एफ़”, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ The D.R. “F” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड� फाईल \ Copy to Guard File. आदेशानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /