VISION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2377/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 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 addition was deleted in the quantum proceedings by a previous order, the penalty levied on that disallowance cannot be sustained. Therefore, the penalty is deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for professional services rendered by M/s Nova Corporate Services Pvt Ltd. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, leading to a penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Nagda
For Respondent: Shri S Sreedhar

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.

2.

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.

1.

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.

4.

The Ld. DR also admitted that, this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.

5.

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).

6.

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 / /

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 →