GEETU R. CHANDIRAMANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12 (2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5502/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2016AY 2006-074 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 penalty was levied on an identical issue as in the case of a co-owner, where the penalty was deleted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no distinction in the facts and thus deleted the impugned penalty.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for the Assessment Year 2006-07. The penalty was levied on an identical issue that was decided in favour of the co-owner of the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when a similar issue concerning a co-owner was decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.

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 “G”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Amit Shukla, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri D.B. Mohini (AR)
For Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran (DR)
Hearing: 31/05/2016

आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla (Judicial Member): This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai- 23 {(in short ‘CIT(A)’}, dated 16.06.2014 passed against penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 19.03.2012 for the Assessment Year 2006-07 for contesting the levy of penalty of Rs.61,650/- levied by the AO.

1.

2 Geetu R. Chandiramani 2. During the course of hearing, arguments were made by Shri D.B. Mohini, (AR) on behalf of the Assessee and by Shri A. Ramachandran, Departmental Representative (Ld. DR) on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

During the course of hearing it was brought to our notice that similar disallowance was made in the case of co owner of the assessee namely Mrs. Parmeshwari L. Chandiramani, on which penalty was also levied which was subsequently deleted by the tribunal vide order dated 11.05.2016 in ITA No.5503/Mum/2014.

3.1. The Ld. DR did not controvert the submissions of the assessee. It is noted by us that disallowance was made and penalty was levied on the identical issue in the case of co- owner, as stated by the Ld. Counsel that the tribunal vide its aforesaid order deleted the penalty with following observations: “We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on records placed before us. After perusing the orders of the authorities below, we find that it is classical case of non- application of mind both by the AO and FAA. The FAA in quantum proceedings decided the issue in favour of the assessee by issuing directions to the AO and allowed the appeal for statistical purposes. The AR of the assessee also; vehemently argued that the income as per the assessment order and income after appeal effect in quantum proceedings were same and penalty levied was wrong and due to non-

3 Geetu R. Chandiramani application of mind to the facts, both on the part of AO and CIT(A). Thus, both the authorities below have failed to appreciate the facts correctly. Moreover, the penalty provisions are harsh and not to be applied mechanically as has been done in the instant case. We, therefore, direct the deletion of penalty by reversing the order of FAA. The AO is directed accordingly, Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.”

3.2. Nothing has been argued before us to make any distinction in the facts. We find that no different decision can be taken from the decision as has already taken by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances we find that impugned penalty is not sustainable and therefore, impugned penalty of Rs.61,650/- is directed to be deleted.

4.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31st May , 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 →