ITO 15(1)(3), MUMBAI vs. CHIMANLAL R SAVLA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7319/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 July 2016AY 2009-102 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted by a Co-ordinate Bench, the penalty proceedings could not survive. The Revenue did not dispute this fact.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2009-10. The assessee argued that the penalty was based on a quantum addition that had already been deleted by a Co-ordinate Bench.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Keetyal Narang, Shri Mayor Makadice
For Respondent: Shri Mayor Makadice

सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 07.7.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 07.7.2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per Mahavir Singh, JM:

1.

This is an Appeal by the Revenue directed against the Order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-22, Mumbai (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 10.9.2014, confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10 vide order dated 26.3.2013.

2.

At the outset, the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee’s counsel submitted that in the case of Shri Chimanlal R. Savla vs. ITO (in dated 06.9.2013), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has deleted the quantum addition, as such the penalty proceedings based on such quantum addition do not survive. The ld. DR does not disputed this fact. The copy of the order dated 06.9.2013

(A.Y. 2009-10) ITO vs. Chimanlal R. Savla (supra) forms part of the record. Recording the same, this order is allowed quashing the penalty proceedings. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. 3.

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 →