9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 627 - AT - Income TaxPenalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - Now when the very genesis for the imposition of the penalty had been vacated and is no more in existence as on date, therefore, the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) can no more survive on a standalone basis. As regards the contention of the D.R, that as the order of the Tribunal in SAIMANGAL INVESTRADE LTD. 2012 (12) TMI 442 - ITAT MUMBAI has been assailed before the Hon ble High Court, therefore, on the said count, the present appeal may be kept in abeyance, we are afraid does not find favour with us. In our considered view, as the order of the Tribunal has not been stayed by the Hon ble High Court and thus holds the field, as on date, therefore, there arises no occasion for keeping the present appellate proceedings in abeyance. We thus finding no merit in the appeal of the revenue, we dismiss the same. - Decided against revenue.
Issues:
Appeal against order deleting penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2002-03. Analysis: 1. The revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-49, Mumbai, deleting the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to ?5,80,68,203. The appeal was based on the grounds that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty while the appeal against the quantum addition for A.Y. 2002-03 was pending before the Bombay High Court. 2. The assessee company, engaged in trading shares and securities, filed a return declaring a loss of ?15,82,97,470 for A.Y. 2002-03. The Assessing Officer (A.O) disallowed a business loss of ?3,67,28,998 on share trading and interest expenditure of ?12,12,79,721 on interest-bearing borrowed funds. Penalty proceedings under Sec. 271(1)(c) were initiated by the A.O for these disallowances. 3. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowances made by the A.O, and subsequently, a penalty of ?5,80,68,203 was imposed on the assessee under Sec. 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal against the penalty as the assessee failed to appear during the proceedings. 4. The Tribunal, upon review, observed that the quantum additions leading to the penalty imposition had been vacated in a separate order related to the quantum appeal of the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to reconsider the penalty issue. The CIT(A, in 2017, deleted the penalty considering the Tribunal's decision on the quantum appeal. 5. The revenue challenged the deletion of the penalty before the Tribunal. The authorized representative for the assessee argued that since the Tribunal had deleted the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty, the CIT(A) rightly vacated the penalty. The revenue's appeal was deemed meritless and dismissed. 6. The Tribunal found that the quantum additions disallowing business loss and interest expenditure had been deleted by the Tribunal in a previous order. As the basis for the penalty imposition no longer existed, the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) could not stand alone. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, as the Tribunal's order had not been stayed by the High Court, and there was no reason to keep the proceedings in abeyance. 7. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, affirming the deletion of the penalty under Sec. 271(1)(c) for A.Y. 2002-03.
|
