ITO, WARD-1, PALGHAR V. SUNIL SHAMLAL MISHRA, PALGHAR

ITA 1111/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palghar (Appellant) against Sunil Shamlal Mishra (Respondent) concerning a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, related to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer following an addition of Rs. 6.50 crores towards Long Term Capital Gains in the assessee's income. However, this addition was later deleted by the Tribunal in quantum proceedings, leading to the cancellation of the penalty by the CIT(A). The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal contested the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the matter was still under challenge in the Bombay High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123664 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1111/MUM/2023 : A.Y: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Palghar (Appellant) Vs. Sunil Shamlal Mishra Mishra Compound, Manor Road, Palghar, Dist. Palghar 401 404. PAN : ABOPM0065G(Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Paresh Deshpande Respondent by : Shri Anil Sathe Date of Hearing : 28/06/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28/06/2023 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi (in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’) and it relates to the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 ITA No. 1111/Mum/2023 Sunil Shamlal Mishra 2. We heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in grass. In the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition towards Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.6.50 crores. The Assessing Officer also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the above said addition. In the meantime, the assessee challenged the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and then before the ITAT and the Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.02.2020 passed in ITA No. 2961/Mum/2018, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings. 3. The assessee also challenged the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by filing appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). It was brought to the notice of the Ld. CIT(A) that the addition on which penalty was levied has since been deleted by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the penalty cannot stand by itself and accordingly, he cancelled the penalty. The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the above said order of the Ld. CIT(A) contending that the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings has been challenged by it in an appeal before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 4. It is an admitted fact that the addition towards Long Term Capital Gains has since been deleted by the Tribunal, vide its order referred to supra. The impugned penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer on the above said addition only. Since the addition itself has been deleted, the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly held that the impugned penalty order shall not survive 3 ITA No. 1111/Mum/2023 Sunil Shamlal Mishra and accordingly cancelled the penalty. Since the order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is in accordance with law, we do not find any reason to interfere with his order. Accordingly, we confirm the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 28 th June, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.R. BASKARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Date : 28 th June, 2023 *SSL* Copy to : 1) The Applicant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, “G” Bench, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai