Marvel Drugs (P) Ltd. v. ITO - Taxpublishers.in

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED Taj Leather Works v. Asstt. CIT 2012 TaxPub(DT) 2585 (Kol-Trib)
REFERRED GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT & Anr. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 2241 (SC)
REFERRED CIT & Ors. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2010 TaxPub(DT) 0832 (Karn-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1204 (Mum-Trib) IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. Marvel Drugs (P) Ltd. v. ITO ITA No. 3626/M/2023 27 February, 2024 Appellant by: Surendra Nijsure, A.R. Respondent by: Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R. ORDER *Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.* 1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned Order dated 11-8-2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (learned CIT (A)), for the assessment year 2006-07, which in turn arose from the penalty Order dated 26-3-2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:- (1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of 2 disallowances in the quantum assessment order, that were set aside to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) and another 1 disallowance, that was allowed, in quantum appeal by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Order dated 20-5-2019. (2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of other disallowances disregarding that it did not involve any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. (3) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not dealing with the contention of the appellant challenging the validity of the penalty order in as much as the assessment as well as penalty order erroneously relied on both limbs of under section 271(1)(c), and therefore the assessing officer failed to record his satisfaction while initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is attracted. Your appellant craves leave to add to alter or vary any of the Grounds of Appeal set out herein above. 3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing drugs and drugs intermediaries, etc. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 27-11-2006 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,41,764. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide Order dated 5-12-2008 passed under section 143(3) of the Act the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 47,38,860 after making various additions/disallowances. In further appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the meanwhile, the penalty proceedings vide Notice dated 11-12-2008 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The assessing officer (AO) vide Penalty order dated 26-3-2013, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied a penalty of Rs. 11,23,763. In the quantum appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide Order dated 20-5-2019 granted partial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned order, the appeal by the assessee, against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was partly allowed. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 1204 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

OM PRAKASH KANT, A.M. & SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

Marvel Drugs (P) Ltd. v. ITO

ITA No. 3626/M/2023

27 February, 2024

Appellant by: Surendra Nijsure, A.R.

Respondent by: Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R.

ORDER

Sandeep Singh Karhail, J.M.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned Order dated 11-8-2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the IT Act) by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (learned CIT (A)), for the assessment year 2006-07, which in turn arose from the penalty Order dated 26-3-2013 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:-

(1) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of 2 disallowances in the quantum assessment order, that were set aside to the file of the Commissioner (Appeals) and another 1 disallowance, that was allowed, in quantum appeal by Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal vide Order dated 20-5-2019.

(2) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming penalty under section 271(1)(c) in respect of other disallowances disregarding that it did not involve any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

(3) The learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not dealing with the contention of the appellant challenging the validity of the penalty order in as much as the assessment as well as penalty order erroneously relied on both limbs of under section 271(1)(c), and therefore the assessing officer failed to record his satisfaction while initiating proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as to which limb of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) is attracted.

Your appellant craves leave to add to alter or vary any of the Grounds of Appeal set out herein above.

3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing drugs and drugs intermediaries, etc. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 27-11-2006 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,41,764. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny and vide Order dated 5-12-2008 passed under section 143(3) of the Act the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 47,38,860 after making various additions/disallowances. In further appeal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee. In the meanwhile, the penalty proceedings vide Notice dated 11-12-2008 issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. The assessing officer (AO) vide Penalty order dated 26-3-2013, passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levied a penalty of Rs. 11,23,763. In the quantum appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the coordinate bench of the Tribunal vide Order dated 20-5-2019 granted partial relief to the assessee. Accordingly, vide impugned order, the appeal by the assessee, against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was partly allowed.