Skip to main content

On admission of appeal by HC, penalty cannot survive

Schrader Duncan Limited vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai)

 S. 271(1)(c): If the High Court admits the appeal u/s 260A, it means that the issue is debatable and penalty cannot survive

Decided:.....Without going into much deliberation and merits of the case, now question arises since the substantial question of law “whether on the facts in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim the loss of Rs.6.34 crore arising on conversion of UTI US 64 units in to 6.75% Tax Free Bonds of UTI?” has been admitted by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, vide order dated 19th September, 2014, now question arises whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act survives when the addition has become debatable? We note that the Hon’ble jurisdictional High court vide order dated 08/07/2014 in the case of CIT vs M/s Nayan Builders & Developers (ITA No.415/2012) held that no penalty is imposable u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Likewise, the Tribunal, in the case of M/s Nayan Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.2379/Mum/2009) order dated 18th March 2011, deleted the penalty. In another case Advaita Estate Development (P.) Ltd. vs ITO (2013) 409 Taxman.com 142 (Mumbai-Trib.) vide order dated 27/08/2013 deleted the penalty. In view of these facts, when the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted substantial question of law on the addition, it becomes apparent that the addition so made has become debatable. The penalty was imposed on the basis of addition so made, therefore, when the addition on the basis of which the penalty was imposed has become doubtful/debatable, therefore, penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot survive. Respectfully following the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. However, it is made clear that if at any stage, the order of the Tribunal on quantum addition is upheld by the Hon’ble High Court, the Department is free to proceed in accordance with law on penalty proceedings.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more