SHWETA ANISH BIRAWAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4195/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 April 2016AY 2005-063 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 held that since the quantum appeal on the same issue was decided in favor of the assessee, the penalty proceedings had no basis. Consequently, the penalty levied and confirmed was deleted.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. The penalties were levied on additions made by treating long-term capital gains on share sales as income from other sources.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) could sustain when the underlying addition was deleted in the quantum appeal. The validity of penalty in light of a favorable decision in the main assessment 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, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B R BASKARAN & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Nagpal

1 �ीम�त शेवता अनीश �बरावत Smt. Shweta Anish Birawat �ीम�त शेवता �करण �बरावत Smt. Shweta Kiran Birawat ITA No.4197/Mum/2013 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ई” �यायपीठ मुंबई म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI �ी बी आर भा�करन, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी अिमत शु�ला, �याियक सद�य के सम� । BEFORE SHRI B R BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4195/Mum/2013 (Assessment year 2005-06) ITA No. 4196/Mum/2013 (Assessment year 2006-07) �ीम�त शेवता अनीश �बरावत Vs Income-tax Officer 17(3)(4), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Smt. Shweta Anish Birawat, Parel, 105/106, 305-306, B Block, Mumbai -400 033 Deepak Jyoti Tower, G D Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai -400 033 स लेख �थयी.:PAN: AUBPS 7750 A अपीलाथ� (Appellant) ��यथ� (Respondent) Appellant by �ी अजय नागपाल Shri Ajay Nagpal : Respondent by : �ी ए के नायक Shri A K Nayak ITA No. 4197/Mum/2013 (Assessment year 2005-06) �ीम�त शेवता �करण �बरावत Vs Income-tax Officer 17(3)(4), Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Smt. Shweta Kiran Birawat, Parel, Mumbai -400 033 105/106, 305-306, B Block, Deepak Jyoti Tower, G D Ambedkar Marg, Kalachowki, Mumbai -400 033 स लेख �थयी.:PAN: AHHPB 8970 C अपीलाथ� (Appellant) ��यथ� (Respondent) Appellant by �ी अजय नागपाल Shri Ajay Nagpal : Respondent by : �ी ए के नायक Shri A K Nayak सुनवाईक�तार�ख /Date of Hearing : 13-04-2016 घोषणाक�तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 13-04-2016 आदेश ORDER 2 �ीम�त शेवता अनीश �बरावत Smt. Shweta Anish Birawat ITA No.4196/Mum/2013 �ीम�त शेवता �करण �बरावत Smt. Shweta Kiran Birawat ITA No.4197/Mum/2013 �ी अिमत शु�ला,�या.स :- PER AMIT SHUKLA, J. M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessees in relation to the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07 against separate impugned orders of even date, 13.03.2013 passed by CIT(A)-29 Mumbai. In all these appeals, the penalty has been levied on the addition made by treating the long term capital gain shown by the assessee on the sale of shares as ‘income from other sources’ by the AO.

2.

Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the quantum appeal the matter has reached upto the Tribunal wherein this issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide order dated 20th February, 2015 in Bunch Appeals in the case of the assessee’s ITAs No.970, 971 and 976/M/2010. Once the issue has been decided in favour of the and addition stands deleted then penalty has no legs to stand.

3.

The DR has also admitted that, in the quantum proceedings, this issue has been decided in favor of the assessee.

4.

In view of the aforesaid fact that in the quantum proceedings the Tribunal has decided this issue in favour of the assessee and no addition now subsists, accordingly, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) has no legs to stand and therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) in all the appeals are deleted.

3 �ीम�त शेवता अनीश �बरावत Smt. Shweta Anish Birawat �ीम�त शेवता �करण �बरावत Smt. Shweta Kiran Birawat ITA No.4197/Mum/2013 5. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (बी आर भा�करन) (अिमत शु�ला) लेखा सद�य �याईक सद�य (B R BASKARAN) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 13th April, 2016 ��त/Copy to:- 1) अपीलाथ� /The Appellant. 2) ��यथ� /The Respondent. 3) The CIT(A) -29, Mumbai. 4) The Commissioner of Income Tax- 17, Mumbai. 5) �ितिनिध िवभागीय “ई”, अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर, मुंबई/ The D.R. “E” Bench, Mumbai. 6) गाड�फाईल\ Copy to Guard File. /आदेशानुसारBy Order / / True Copy / /

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 →