Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM)
Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A) – 52, Mumbai and they relate to Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2010-11.
The Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer had estimated the income of the assessee and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in both the years. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty in both the years and hence
2 M/s. Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd. & 842/Mum/2015 assessee has filed these appeals before us. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had challenged the assessment orders of both the years before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, vide its order dt. 27.5.2016 passed in & ITA No. 4184/Mum/2013, has set-aside the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for doing de novo assessment. Accordingly, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned penalty orders will not survive in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal.
The Ld. DR did not contradict the factual aspects presented by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.
Since the assessment orders, on the basis of which the impugned penalty orders have been passed, have been set-aside by the Tribunal and the matters have been restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for carrying out de novo assessment, I find merit in the contention of the assessee. Accordingly, I set-aside the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in both the years under consideration. However, I may state that the Assessing Officer is at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings afresh in the set-aside proceedings, if so advised.
In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd June, 2016.