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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more