ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ISHWAR SADAN CHS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3216/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 October 2015AY 2001-022 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 assessment order was annulled, the penalty order and the subsequent appellate order had no basis. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order cancelling the penalty levied by the AO. The assessee argued that the assessment order, on which the penalty was based, had been annulled by the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order can stand if the underlying assessment order has been annulled.

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, “I” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Appellant: Shri Ravinder Sindhu
Hearing: 29.10.2015Pronounced: 29.10.2015

O R D E R

Per B.R.BASKARAN, Accountant Member:

1.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 7.2.2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-30, Mumbai cancelling the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

At the time of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessment order on the basis of which the impugned penalty was levied has since been annulled by the Tribunal vide its order dated 27.8.2014 passed in (AY-2001-02), accordingly prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

3.

The ld. DR did not dispute the factual aspects submitted by the ld. AR

4.

Since, the assessment order, on the basis of which the penalty was levied by the AO, has been annulled by the Tribunal, penalty order and also impugned appellate order do not have legs to stand on its own. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue against the appellate order is liable to be dismissed. We order accordingly.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →