DCIT CENT. CIR 1(2) , MUMBAI V. MILAN KAVIN PARIKH, MUMBAI

ITA 1240/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8589 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SALIL MISHRA
• Keywords: Period of limitation
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

म ु ंबई ठ “ एच ” म ु म , एवं व ! व"# , $ % ! " & !म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER !ं. 1240/म ु ं/20 22 (%-. व .2007-08) ITA NO.1240/MUM/2022(A.Y. 2007-08) DCIT, Central Circle 1(2),Mumbai Room No. 906, 9 th Floor, Annexe Building, Pratishtha Bhavan, MK Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ...... #/ /Appellant ब- म Vs. Milan Kavin Parikh, 15A, J Mehta Road, Next to Khatau, Condominium, Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai – 400 006. PAN: AADPP-0814-G ..... %0व /Respondent #/ 1व / Appellant by : Shri Salil Mishra %0व 1व /Respondent by : Shri Vijay Mehta ! ु -व ई 2 %0 #/ Date of hearing : 10/08/2022 3 4 2 %0 #/ Date of pronouncement : 10/08/2022 &श/ ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-47 , Mumbai [in short 'the CIT(A)’] dated 15/11/2021 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. This appeal by the Revenue is time barred by 108 days. The impugned order was passed during the period of COVID-19 Pandemic . The Hon'ble 2 ITA NO.1240/MUM/2022(A.Y. 2007-08) Supreme Court of India taking cognizance of the hardship caused to the litigants by pandemic extended the period of limitation under general laws and special laws vide order dated 23/09/2021 reported as “ Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, 132 taxmann.com 123. The present appeal has been filed within the extended period of limitation, hence, no delay. 3. Shri Vijay Mehta appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has deleted penalty as the Tribunal in ITA No.1959 &1960/Mum/2020 vide order dated 07/04/2021 deleted the addition on which penalty was levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘ the Act’]. 4. Shri Salil Mishra representing the Department supported the assessment order. 5. Both sides heard. The Revenue is in appeal against deleting of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Undisputedly, the Tribunal has deleted the additions on which penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied. Once the substratum for levy of penalty has eroded the penalty does not survive. We find no infirmity in the impugned order, hence, the same is upheld and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 10 th day of August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (VIKAS AWASTHY) /VICE PRESIDENT $ % ! " /JUDICIAL MEMBER म ु ंबई/ Mumbai, 9 - ं /Dated 10/08/2022 Vm, Sr. PS(O/S) 3 ITA NO.1240/MUM/2022(A.Y. 2007-08) त ल प अ े षतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. #//The Appellant , 2. %0व / The Respondent. 3. ु :0( )/ The CIT(A)- 4. ु :0 CIT 5. व; < %0%- , . . ., म ु बंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. < => ? @ /Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai