SULEENA N. SHINDE,MUMBAI vs. ITO 15(1)(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal of the assessee was allowed and the addition on account of capital gain was deleted, the penalty imposed on that addition would not survive. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged a penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed on account of capital gains, and the assessee argued that since the quantum appeal was allowed, the penalty should not survive.
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) survives when the underlying addition on account of capital gains is deleted in appeal.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, A. M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order dated 2.08.2012 passed by ld.CIT(A)-26, Mumbai, for assessment year 2004-05 by which the assessee is challenging the confirmation of penalty levied by the AO.
At the outset, the ld.AR submitted before us that the quantum appeal of the assessee has been allowed by the Tribunal in (AY- 2004-05) dated 27.4.2016 against which the penalty of Rs.6,61,825/- was imposed by the AO vide order passed u/s 271(1)( c) dated 31.3.2009 and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). The ld.AR submitted that since the quantum has 2 6822/Mum/2012 been deleted by the Tribunal, the penalty imposed on the quantum does not survive. Therefore, the ld.AR prayed that the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) be deleted.
The ld. DR did not raise any objection to the submission put forth by the ld.AR.
After considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the Tribunal order passed in assessee’s own case in (AY- 2004-05) dated 27.4.2016, vide para 5 of the said order the Tribunal deleted the impugned addition of Rs.6,61,825/- on account of capital gain. For the sake of convenience, we reproduce the finding of the Tribunal as under : ”5. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that during the year assessee was in receipt of part of the long term capital gain arose out of transfer of property. As the property was jointly owned by the various family members, the assessee has offered Rs.10 lakhs as against actual share as worked out at Rs.38.66 lakhs on the basis of assessee’s entitlement of 28% of the sale proceeds. We found that sale proceeds was received on transfer of long term capital gains by one of the member of the family. Since assessee was in receipt of Rs.10 lakhs, therefore, she has offered Rs.10 lakhs for capital gain. However, it is not clear from the record as to whether the balance of capital gain has been offered by other family members in their hand. It is also not clear as to which member of the family have got higher share in capital gains as a result of share of capital gains by the amount as sacrificed by the assessee in her share. The total amount of capital gain is not in dispute. The dispute pertains to the share received by the assessee. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of AO to find out if the balance of share of the capital gain which was not taken by the assessee and transferred in favour of the other family members, has been correctly offered by that family members in his hands, then the assessee can be made liable for capital gain in respect of 3 6822/Mum/2012
Rs.10 lakhs actually received by his/her. If other family members who are in receipt of shares in capital gain as sacrificed by the assessee had not offered in his shares along with sacrificed portion of assessee, the same can be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. We direct accordingly.”
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S. Sikka Motors PVT LTD vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026