LLOYD'S REGISTER U.K,MUMBAI vs. ADDL DIT (IT) RG 4, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4605/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2016AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had allowed the claim of set-off of business loss. Therefore, the penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) on this disallowance no longer survived and needed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer levied penalty on additions confirmed by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted penalty on managerial fees but confirmed it on the disallowance of business loss set-off. The assessee appealed against the confirmed penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted in quantum appeal.

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, “L” Bench, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri R.P. Acharya
For Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar
Hearing: 25.5.2016Pronounced: 25.5.2016

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

The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 5.3.3013 passed by learned CIT(A)-11, Mumbai partially confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.

2.

We have heard the parties and perused the record. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the year under consideration by making following additions:-

a) Managerial fees assessed as fees for technical services ` 4.65 crores b) Disallowance of claim of set off of business loss ` 38.57 lakhs

3.

In the appeal filed by the assessee before learned CIT(A) against the above said additions, the first appellate authority granted relief in respect of 2 Lloyd’s Register Group Limited managerial fees by 50% and confirmed the disallowance of claim of set off of business loss.

4.

After the receipt of order of Ld CIT(A) in quantum appeal, the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the additions confirmed by learned CIT(A). The assessee challenged the penalty order by filing the appeal before learned CIT(A). The first appellate authority deleted the penalty levied on addition relating to managerial charges and confirmed the penalty levied on disallowance of claim of set off of business loss. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

5.

At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal has allowed claim of set off of business loss in its order dated 18.3.2006 passed in ITA No. 3138/Mum/2011. Accordingly he submitted that the penalty confirmed by learned CIT(A) on disallowance of claim of set off of business loss requires to be deleted.

6.

We heard Ld D.R and perused the record. We notice that the learned CIT(A) has deleted penalty levied on the addition relating to the managerial fees and he has confirmed the penalty levied on claim of set off of business loss. Now, it is shown to us that the Tribunal, in the appeal relating to quantum assessment proceedings, has allowed the assessee to claim of set off of loss. Hence the penalty confirmed by Ld CIT(A) on said disallowance needs to be deleted as it no longer survives. Accordingly we set aside the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied on disallowance of claim of set off of business loss.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Open Court on 25.5.2016.

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 →