Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Aluvind Architectural Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Mumbai)
We find at the outset, the ld AR argued that penalty that is in dispute before us, falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in its Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 for preferring appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. We find that the ld. DR vehemently argued that the said case falls within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said Circular and accordingly he argued that the appeal is maintainable. We find that the exception provided in para 10(e) of the Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 is applicable only for the quantum proceedings and the same cannot be made applicable for penalty proceedings. It is well settled that penalty and quantum assessment proceedings are distinct and separate. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue by following the aforesaid Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and hold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal in ITA No.6053/Mum/2019 for A.Y.2009-10 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai in appeal No. CIT(A)-20/IT-10027/2018-19 dated 25/06/2019 (ld. CIT(A) in short) in the matter of imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).
2. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the ld. AO had levied penalty on the estimated addition made on account of bogus purchases. This penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on an addition made on account of bogus purchases was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) on the primary ground that no penalty would survive on an estimated addition. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.
3. We find at the outset, the ld AR argued that penalty that is in dispute before us, falls below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT in its Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 for preferring appeal by the Revenue before this Tribunal. We find that the ld. DR vehemently argued that the said case falls within the exception provided in para 10(e) of the said Circular and accordingly he argued that the appeal is maintainable. We find that the exception provided in para 10(e) of the Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 is applicable only for the quantum proceedings and the same cannot be made applicable for penalty proceedings. It is well settled that penalty and quantum assessment proceedings are distinct and separate. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of the Revenue by following the aforesaid Circular 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019 and hold that the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable.
4. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/04/2021
