Triumph Securities Ltd v Addl CIT

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. Mahesh Wood Products (P) Ltd 2017 TaxPub(DT) 1563 (Del-HC)
REFERRED Pr. CIT v. JKD Capital & Finlease Ltd. 2015 TaxPub(DT) 4094 (Del-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6990 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J.M. Triumph Securities Ltd. v. Addl. CIT ITA Nos. 1217 & 1218/Mum/2018 14 October, 2022 Appellant by: Rajiv Khandelwal, AR Respondent by: P. Daniel, DR ORDER *Prashant Maharishi, A.M.* These are two appeals in : a. ITA No. 1218/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2000-01 filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (in short the learned CIT (A)) dt. 29-11-2017, wherein penalty under section 271D of Rs.12,38,75,000 levied by the penalty Order, dt. 30-7-2014 passed by the Additional CIT - Central range -6, Mumbai (the learned Adjudicating Authority) confirmed and b. ITA No 1217/M/2018 for assessment year 2000-01 where in appellate Order, dt. 18-12-2017 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wherein penalty levied under section 271E of Rs.12,23,75,000 by learned Adjudicating Authority by penalty Order, dt. 30-7-2004 is further enhanced by Rs.22,99,17,749 respectively. 02. Grounds in ITA No. 1217/Mum/2018 challenging penalty confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under section 271E of the Act are as under: - The Commissioner (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,23,75,000 levied by the Additional CIT, Central Range 6, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Addl. CIT) and further confirming the enhancement of penalty by Rs. 22,99,17,749, enhanced by her predecessor under section 271E of the Act. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the action of the Addl. CIT and her predecessor in levying and enhancing the impugned penalty under section 271E of the Act. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals), before confirming the said levy of penalty, has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in their Order, dt. 12-7-2006 and hence, the impugned penalty requires to be quashed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2022 TaxPub(DT) 6990 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M. & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, J.M.

Triumph Securities Ltd. v. Addl. CIT

ITA Nos. 1217 & 1218/Mum/2018

14 October, 2022

Appellant by: Rajiv Khandelwal, AR

Respondent by: P. Daniel, DR

ORDER

Prashant Maharishi, A.M.

These are two appeals in :

a. ITA No. 1218/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2000-01 filed against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals)-49, Mumbai (in short the learned CIT (A)) dt. 29-11-2017, wherein penalty under section 271D of Rs.12,38,75,000 levied by the penalty Order, dt. 30-7-2014 passed by the Additional CIT - Central range -6, Mumbai (the learned Adjudicating Authority) confirmed and

b. ITA No 1217/M/2018 for assessment year 2000-01 where in appellate Order, dt. 18-12-2017 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) wherein penalty levied under section 271E of Rs.12,23,75,000 by learned Adjudicating Authority by penalty Order, dt. 30-7-2004 is further enhanced by Rs.22,99,17,749 respectively.

02. Grounds in ITA No. 1217/Mum/2018 challenging penalty confirmed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) under section 271E of the Act are as under: -

The Commissioner (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT (A)) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,23,75,000 levied by the Additional CIT, Central Range 6, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Addl. CIT) and further confirming the enhancement of penalty by Rs. 22,99,17,749, enhanced by her predecessor under section 271E of the Act.

The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought not to have confirmed the action of the Addl. CIT and her predecessor in levying and enhancing the impugned penalty under section 271E of the Act.

The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner (Appeals), before confirming the said levy of penalty, has not followed the directions of the Tribunal in their Order, dt. 12-7-2006 and hence, the impugned penalty requires to be quashed.