DR HUSEINA DAWOODI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(4),

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1570/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 June 2016AY 2001-022 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 noted that the addition on which the penalty was levied had been deleted by the CIT(A) in the quantum appeal. Therefore, the penalty was also liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of Rs. 6.01 lakhs under Section 271(1)(c) based on an addition of Rs. 18 lakhs for unexplained expenditure. The assessee had challenged this addition in quantum proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) can survive when the underlying addition has been deleted in quantum proceedings.

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, “H” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Mukarram Sadikot
For Respondent: Shri Ranadhir Gupta
Hearing: 01.6.2016Pronounced: 01.6.2016

O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran, AM :-

The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 6.11.2013 passed by learned CIT(A)-27, Mumbai confirming the penalty of ` 6.01 lakhs levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer has levied penalty on the addition of ` 18 lakhs relating to unexplained expenditure. The learned counsel submitted that the assessee has challenged the addition in the quantum proceedings before learned CIT(A) as well as ITAT and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 16.3.2016 passed in has deleted the addition. Accordingly he submitted that the impugned penalty is also liable to be deleted.

3.

Learned Departmental Representative accepted the factual aspects presented by learned AR.

2 Dr. Mrs. Huseina Fakhruddin Davoodi

4.

Having heard the rival submissions, we notice that the impugned penalty is liable to be deleted, since the addition on which the penalty was levied has already been deleted by learned CIT(A). Accordingly we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 01.6.2016.

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 →