Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Anjis Developers Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 959/MUM/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 20/02/2023
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Anjis Developers Private Limited Vs PCIT (ITAT Mumbai)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai’s ruling in the case of Anjis Developers Private Limited versus the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai, has become a notable judgment regarding the initiation of penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This case highlights the intricacies and legal standing of penalty proceedings in the context of tax assessments, offering valuable insights for taxpayers and practitioners alike.

Background of the Case: Anjis Developers Private Limited (the appellant) filed an appeal against the revision order dated March 10, 2022, by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-5, Mumbai, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The core issue revolved around whether the Assessing Officer (AO) was legally obligated to initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Income-tax Act in every assessment proceeding, and whether the non-initiation of such proceedings renders the Assessment Order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.

Factual Matrix: The appellant filed its return of income, declaring a loss. Upon scrutiny, the AO assessed deemed rental income on unsold flats’ stock-in-trade, resulting in an addition under section 143(3) of the Act. However, the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings under section 270A, leading to the Principal Commissioner’s intervention under section 263 of the Act, deeming the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue’s interest for not initiating penalty proceedings.

Legal Contentions and ITAT’s Analysis: The appellant contended that the initiation of penalty proceedings is at the AO’s discretion, arguing that the Principal Commissioner could not replace the AO’s satisfaction with his own. The tribunal examined various precedents and legal provisions, particularly focusing on the appellant’s argument against the mandatory initiation of penalty proceedings for every addition made during assessment.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031