SM ENERGY TEKNIK & ELECTRONICS LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3221/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2016AY 2003-043 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 quantum addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) also does not survive and should be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a penalty levied by the AO, which was based on the disallowance of foreign travel expenses. The ITAT had previously deleted the quantum addition related to these expenses.

What were the issues?

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

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, MUMBAI “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR.

Hearing: 28.06.2016Pronounced: 30.06.2016

अपीलाथ� क� ओर से /By Appellant : Shri S. A. Kanji, A.R. ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent : Shri J. Saravanan, D.R. सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 28.06.2016 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.06.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M:

This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai, dated 04.01.2013 for A.Y. 2003-04 on following grounds: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the cases and in law.

A.Y. 03-04 [SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd. vs. DCIT] Page 2 The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned A.O. of Rs.2,16,005/- representing 100% of the tax attributable to disallowance of Rs.5,87,565/- towards the foreign travel expenses without appreciating the fact brought on record by the Appellant both during appellate and assessment proceedings.

The appellant prays that the same may be deleted.”

2.

In this case, penalty has been levied on the basis of disallowance made on account of foreign travel expenses. Ld. Authorized Representative before us quantified that quantum addition has been deleted by ITAT Mumbai ‘E’ Bench in vide para no.2.3 by observing as under:

“2.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the assessee had furnished the details about the encashment/surrender of foreign exchange before both the lower authorities. Page no.64 onwards evidence the encashment/surrender of foreign exchange. The AO or the FAA had not doubted the Foreign tours undertaken by the employees of the assessee-company. After considering the material on record, specially page no.65 to 96 and the judgment of Krishnores Ltd., we are of the opinion that the addition upheld by the FAA was not based on facts available on the record. The assessee had filed all the details before the AO. Therefore, reversing the order of the FAA, we decide ground no.1 in favour of the assessee.”

Nothing contrary was brought to our knowledge on behalf of Revenue. So, we find that quantum addition is made on account of disallowance of foreign travel expenses, which is the basis of penalty, does not survive. In view of the A.Y. 03-04 [SM Energy Teknik & Electronics Ltd. vs. DCIT] Page 3 Tribunal’s decision in quantum, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Same is directed to be deleted.

3.

As a result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 30th day of June, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 30/06/2016 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।

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 →