ACIT-15(1)(2),MUMBAI , MUMBAI V. LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES LLP , MUMBAI

ITA 6191/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Lionbridge Technologies LLP, which faced a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following an assessment that determined a total income significantly higher than reported. Initially, the AO imposed a penalty for tax evasion, which was later contested and led to a quashed demand by the ITAT. The CIT(A) deleted the penalty based on the ITAT's earlier decision that had removed the quantum addition. The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision, which was dismissed by the ITAT, affirming that the penalty was no longer applicable since the underlying addition had been reversed.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792352 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: ITAT Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 610/Mum/2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PARAS SAVLA; RAJESH KUMAR YADAV
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6191/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai 126B, 1st Floor, AayakarBhavan, M.K. Road, Mumba-200 020 vs Lionbridge Technologies LLP 301 to 304, B-Wing, Reliable Tech Park Off Thane Belapur Road Navi Mumbai, Thane Airoli S.O.- 400 708 PAN: AABCT3380Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Paras Savla Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (CIT-DR) Date of hearing : 27/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 03/12/2025 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter, ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter, ‘Act’] date of order 23/07/2025 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The impugned order arises from the order of the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax- 15(2)(1), Mumbai (in Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.6191 /Mum/2025 Lionbridge Technologies LLP short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 31/03/2019. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29/03/2016, determining the total income at Rs.20,64,97,610/-. The assessee challenged the impugned assessment order before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the impugned addition. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ITAT, challenging both the legal grounds as well as the merits of the addition, and obtained relief. Consequently, the demand stood quashed. The Ld. AO thereafter issued a notice under section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied a penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, amounting to Rs.6,92,76,334/-. The penalty order was simultaneously challenged before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), relying upon the order of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in ITA No. 610/Mum/2018 date of pronouncement 27/05/2020, deleted the penalty on the ground that the quantum addition itself had not survived. Aggrieved, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 3. The Ld. DR submitted that the revenue has challenged the quantum order before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. He further argued that the present penalty appeal should be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the quantum appeal by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. However, the Ld. DR was unable to produce any stay order or direction from the Hon’ble High Court directing the Tribunal to keep the penalty appeal in abeyance. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.6191 /Mum/2025 Lionbridge Technologies LLP 4. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, fully supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and specifically submitted that the quantum addition was deleted by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench “I” in ITA No. 610/Mum/2018, order dated 27/05/2020. The Ld. AR placed a copy of the said ITAT order on record. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the quantum appeal arising from the assessment order has already been adjudicated by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench, and the impugned addition has been deleted. It is a settled proposition of law that when the quantum addition does not survive, the penalty levied in respect of such addition becomes infructuous. In view of this legal position, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue bearing ITA No.6191/Mum/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/12/ 2025 Sd/- sd/- (SMT. RENU JAUHRI) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai,िदनांक/Dated: 03/12/2025 Pavanan Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.6191 /Mum/2025 Lionbridge Technologies LLP Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकरआयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुंबई/DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 5. गाड\u0019फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, MUMBAI Printed from counselvise.com "