ITO 6(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAJESH D. VAIDYA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4073/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 June 2016AY 2006-073 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 dismissed the revenue's appeal in the quantum case due to low tax effect. Consequently, the penalty appeal was also dismissed as the underlying addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The revenue filed appeals against the assessment order and a penalty order for the assessment year 2006-07. The tax effect in the quantum appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect, and whether penalty can be sustained when the primary addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA (ACOUNTANT MEMBER)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Ranjan

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.4073/Mum/2013
I.T.A. No.4074/Mum/2013

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R Per ASHWANI TANEJA, AM

These appeals petrtain to samer assessee. First we shall take up revenue’s appeal in A.Y. 2006-07. This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [hereinafter called ld.CITA)] dt 28-02-2013 against the assessment order u/s 143(3) for A.Y.2006-07.

2.

During the course of hearing it has been brought to our notice that tax effect involved in this case is less than Rs.10 lakhs. The ld.DR confirmed this fact. Under these circumstances, we find that appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable in view of circular No.21 of 2015 of CBDT dt 10-12-2015. Thus, the appeal of the revenue being not maintainable , is hereby dismissed. Our order should have no bearing on merits of the case.

3.

Now we shall take up appal filed by the revenue in passed against order of Ld.CIT(A) DT 28-2-2013 passed against penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2006-07.

4.

It is noted that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty of Rs.10 lakhs u/s 271(1)(c) which was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A) on the ground that addition made in the assessment order u/s 68 amounting to Rs.2,58,404 on which penalty was levied, was deleted by the Ld.CIT(A). It is noted by us that appeal filed by the revenue in the quantum has been dismissed in our order as discussed above. Thus, as on date, the quantum addition stands deleted. Thus, there are no basis to continue with the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, we find that the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty and his order is confirmed.

5.

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court at the conclusion of hearing.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →