A.C.I.T.-20(2), MUMBAI vs. NIRMAN CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7265/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 March 2016AY 2007-0811 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal followed its previous order for the same assessment year and deleted the penalty. It found that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay in payment and had paid the dues shortly after, without departmental notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee firm engaged in construction did not pay self-assessment tax before filing its return of income, citing liquidity crunch and staff issues. The Assessing Officer levied a penalty of 100% of the unpaid tax, which was restricted to 20% by the CIT(A). The Revenue appealed against this restriction.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 221 is leviable when the assessee demonstrates good and sufficient cause for non-payment of self-assessment tax before filing the return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140A,Section 221,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Jain-DR, Shri K. K. Lalkaka
Hearing: 01/03/2016

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

More judgments on Section 140A

All 125 judgments and leading authorities on Section 140A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →