S. 271(1)(c) : Penalty-Concealment-Additional legal ground is admitted-Not specifying the charge-Levy of penalty is not valid-Substantial question of law is admitted before High Court-Penalty cannot be levied-The decision in Veena Estate P. Ltd. v. CIT (2024) 464 ITR 483 (Bom.)(HC) is distinguished. [S. 68, 69, 260A, 274]
The AO levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)( c) of the Act , as the quantum addition is affirmed by the Tribunal. CIT(A) affirmed the order of the AO. On appeal before the Tribunal , the assessee filed an additional grounds and raised the two additional legal grounds, i.e. the penalty was levied without specifying the charge and since the substantial question of law has been admitted by the Honourable High Court against quantum additions hence , the penalty cannot be levied .The Honourable Tribunal admitted the additional legal grounds and deleted the penalty on both the grounds. Honourable Tribunal relied on Mohd. Farhan A. Shaik v. Dy. CIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (FB)(Bom)(HC). The Honourable Tribunal also held that the r in the case of Veena Estate P. Ltd v .CIT(2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom)(HC) has not decided on merits, the decision is merely an interim order and peculiar facts of the case, which has no binding effect on other assesses, relied on State of Assam v. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmacahri Sanstha (CA No. 6492 of 2002 decided on 17-3-2009)(SC). On admission of substantial question of law the Tribunal relied on CIT v. Nayan Builders and Developers (2014) 368 ITR 722 (Bom)(HC), CIT v. Advaita Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 98 CCH 97 (Bom)(HC). Penalty is deleted. (ITA No. 6584/6585/6586/Mum/2011 dt. 13-12-2024)(AY. 2002-03)
Amrish Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline .org
Bhavya Manoj Dhupalia (Ms) v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline .org
Mohan Manoj Dhupalia v. DCIT (Mum.)(Trib.) www.itatonline.org
[Coram : Hon’ble Shri Saktijit Dey, V.P. and Hon’ble Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, AM]