ITO 24(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. MUSTAK KARIM PRASALIA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3864/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 June 2016AY 2008-093 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 appeal in limine. This was because the tax effect was below Rs. 10,00,000 and did not fall under any exceptions mentioned in the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty by the CIT(A) for AY 2008-09. The penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) based on a quantum addition which was also deleted by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable given the tax effect and CBDT circulars, and whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the quantum addition is 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, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri. Durga Dutt
Hearing: 14/06/2016Pronounced: 14/06/2016

This appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 31/03/2013 passed by the Ld CIT(Appeals)-34, Mumbai for the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The revenue has challenged the impugned order on following effective grounds of appeal:-

1. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. 4,33,658/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) by thr assessing officer on the basis that the quantum addition had been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) vide its order dated 31/03/2014.”

2. “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.4,33,658/- levied by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee could not substantiate with documentary evidence the source of the cash deposits.”

3. “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,33,658/- levied by the Assessing Officer as further appeal has been recommended against the quantum addition by not accepting the decision of the Ld. CIT(A)”

3.

Case was called for hearing, however, none appeared on behalf of the respondent/assessee. We notice that the tax effect in this case is below Rs.10,00,000/- therefore, as per the CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, dated 10/12/2015, the present appeal is not maintainable.

4.

The Ld. DR fairly conceded that the tax effect in department’s appeal is below Rs.10 Lakhs, We further find that the issue raised in appeal does not fall under any of the exceptions specified in para 8 of the Circular. Since, it has been specifically clarified in the Circular aforesaid that the instruction will apply retrospectively to all the pending appeals; the present appeal filed by the revenue is not maintainable. We, therefore, dismiss the same in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on 14th June, 2016

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 →