ACIT CEN CIR 32, MUMBAI vs. HIRANANDANI DEVELOPERS AKRUTI JV, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1175/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2015AY 2006-073 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal against mere initiation of penalty proceedings is not maintainable. It also held that if the addition on which penalty was levied is deleted, the penalty order loses its basis and is liable to be quashed.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedings, while the Revenue appealed the deletion of penalty. The assessee's appeal was deemed not maintainable as no penalty order was passed. The penalty levied was based on an addition that was subsequently deleted by a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of an appeal against the initiation of penalty proceedings and the validity of a penalty order when the underlying addition is deleted.

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, “H” BENCH, MUMBAI

Hearing: 8.10.2015Pronounced: 8.10.2015

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.375/Mum/2014
I.T.A. No.1175/Mum/2014

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per B R Baskaran, AM:

The appeal filed by the assessee as well as Revenue relate to the assessment year 2006-07. 2. In appeal No.375/Mum/2014, the assessee is aggrieved by the decision of ld.CIT(A) in initiating the penalty proceedings under section 2 375/M/2014 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In appeal No.1175/Mum/2014, the Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

We heard the parties and perused the record. It was pointed out by the ld.DR that the appeal No.375/Mum/2014 filed by the assessee is directed against the initiation of penalty proceeding by the ld.CIT(A). The ld. DR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not ultimately passed any penalty order. He further submitted the assessee cannot file any appeal for mere initiation of penalty proceedings. The ld. AR did not dispute these factual aspects. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee being ITA No.375/Mum/2014 in limine as not maintainable.

4.

With regard to the appeal filed by the Revenue, it was brought to our notice that the addition on which the impugned penalty was levied has since been deleted by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, vide its order dated 7.5.2014 passed in ITA No.374/Mum/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07. Consequent thereto, the penalty order does not have legs to stand on its own and hence is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is also liable to be dismissed.

5.

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.

Pronounced accordingly on 8th October, 2015. घोषणध खुरे न्मधमधरम भें ददनधंकः 8th October, 2015 को की गई ।

(PAWAN SINGH) ( B.R. BASKARAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai: 8th October, 2015. व.नन.स./ SRL , Sr. PS

3 375/M/2014

आदेश की प्रतिलऱपप अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीरधथी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent. 2. आमकय आमुक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)- concerned 3. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT concerned 4. ववबधगीम प्रनतननधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई /

5.

DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned गधर्ा पधईर / Guard file. 6.आदेशधनुसधय/ BY ORDER, सहधमक ऩंजीकधय (Asstt.

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 →