Acid 19(2), Mumbai Shri Kunal N Shan, Mumbai

Last updated: 27 May 2021

Save Share

Quick Summary

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed an appeal by the revenue concerning assessment year 2006-07. The appeal challenged the deletion of a penalty amounting to Rs. 103.18 Lacs imposed on Shri Kunal N. Shah. The original addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, had previously been deleted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2006-07 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 21/08/2019 which has deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.103.18 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 12/06/2015.

Citation :
I.T.A. No.6781/Mum/2019

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“H” BENCH, MUMBAI

BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND
HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

I.T.A. No.6781/Mum/2019
Assessment Year: 2006-07)

ACIT-19(2)
R.No.207, 2nd Floor
Matru Mandir, Tardeo
Mumbai – 400 007
PAN/GIR No. AAIPB-6866-F
Appellant)

Vs.

Shri Kunal N. Shah
510, Gitanjali Garden
68E, Nepean Sea Road
Mumbai – 400 006
Respondent)

Assessee by : Ms. Aarti Vissanji – Ld. AR
Revenue by : Shri Gurbinder Singh-Ld. DR

Date of Hearing : 20/04/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 03/05/2021

O R D E R

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment year [AY in short] 2006-07 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, Mumbai [in short CIT(A) ] dated 21/08/2019 which has deleted penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.103.18 Lacs as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 12/06/2015.

2. We have carefully heard the rival submissions and perused relevant material on record. Our adjudication to the subject matter of appeal would be as given in succeeding paragraphs.

3. The facts leading to imposition of penalty are that the assessee was assessed for the year u/s 143(3) r.w.s. on 147 on 18/03/2014 wherein it was saddled with addition of Rs.613.09 Lacs u/s 69A, being undisclosed income in bank account held by the assessee in HSBC Bank, Geneva, Switzerland. Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) which culminated into imposition of impugned penalty of Rs.103.18 Lacs by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 12/06/2015. Aggrieved the assessee contested the penalty before Ld. CIT(A).

4. During appellate proceedings, it transpired that the quantum addition u/s 69A as sustained by Ld. CIT(A) stood deleted by Tribunal in ITA Nos.6067 & 6068/Mum/2014 order dated 30/10/2018. The Ld. CIT(A) opined that since quantum additions stood deleted, the penalty would have no legs to stand as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C.Builders (146 Taxmann.com 481). Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us.

5. Before us, it is undisputed position that quantum additions against which penalty was levied, has already been deleted by the Tribunal. In such a case, as rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A), the impugned penalty would not survive. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order.

6. The appeal stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 3rd May, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal)
Vice President Accountant Member

Mumbai; Dated : 03.05.2021
Sr.PS, Jaisy Varghese

Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.The Appellant
2.The Respondent
3.The CIT(A)
4.CIT– concerned
5.DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6.Guard File

BY ORDER,
(Dy./Asstt.Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai.

FAQ :

A penalty of Rs. 103.18 Lacs was initially imposed on Shri Kunal N. Shah under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

The penalty was imposed following an addition of Rs. 613.09 Lacs made under section 69A for undisclosed income found in an HSBC Bank account in Geneva.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the penalty, opining that it could not stand if the original addition was not upheld.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal because the quantum addition, against which the penalty was levied, had already been deleted by the Tribunal itself.