ACIT CC 39, MUMBAI vs. RACHNA LAND P.LTD, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 602/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 November 2015AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions under Section 69C were deleted, the penalty levied on those additions also falls. Therefore, no interference was called for.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was based on additions made under Section 69C, which were subsequently deleted by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions under Section 69C have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Jain
Hearing: 29.10.2015Pronounced: 04.11.2015

आदेश / O R D E R

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-41, Mumbai dated 29.10.2013 pertaining to Assessment year 2008-09.

2.

The sole grievance of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act holding that the quantum addition made u/s. 69C of the Act has been deleted by the Tribunal.

3.

The grievance of the Revenue is that the Department has not accepted the order of the Tribunal and has preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay therefore, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous.

4.

A perusal of the orders of the authorities below show that the penalty has been levied on the additions made u/s. 69C of the Act. The quantum addition went upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal by a consolidated order in & 8178/M/2011 dated 22.3.2013 has deleted the quantum addition.

5.

Sublato fundaments credit Opus meaning – in the case the foundation is removed, super structure falls. As the quantum additions stands deleted, the penalty falls. Therefore, no interference is called for.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 4th November, 2015.

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 →