Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (A.Y.2009-10) ITO-17(1)(2)(1) Vs. Chetan Shashikant Shah 1St, Floor, room No. 104, 1st, Floor, Office No. 101, Kautilya Bhavan, G. 33, Dariyastan Street, Block, BKC, Bandra(E) Masjid, Mumbai, Mandvi Mumbai 400051 S.O 400003 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AACPS9153Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Shri. Rajesh S. Shah Respondent by : Shri. Krishna Kumar Date of Hearing 30.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM):
Fact in brief is that return of income declaring total income of Rs 3,22,146/- was filed on 21.09.2009. The return of income tax processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter “the Act”) . The case of the assessee was reopened by issuing the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 24.01.2014 on the basis of information received from Sale Tax Authority that some dealers were indulged in providing accommodation entries in the form of issuing bogus sales bills tax invoices without supplying the goods. The Assessee was one of the beneficiaries who have shown purchases to the amount of Rs 60,06,037/- from 8 parties whose name appeared in the list of such dealers as per the official website of the Sales Tax Department P a g e | 2 ITO vs Chetan Shashikant Shah Maharashtra. The AO has treated the transaction made with the said parties as non- genuine and estimated gross profit at 12.5% of such purchases shown from the alleged hawala parties. Therefore, the total addition to the amount of Rs 7,50,755/- was made to the total income of the assessee. In the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has reduced the rate of addition to 8% of gross profit as against rate of 12.5% estimated by the AO. The AO has also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 07.01.2022, the assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs 2,13,664/- for furnishing the inaccurate particular of income.
Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee after placing reliance on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mr Yashraj Films Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT Circle 29 vide ITA 7519/Mum/2013 dated 08.07.2015 and ITAT Mumbai in the case of DCIT vs M/s Rishab Impex Gulabdas & Co. dated 10.04.2015 wherein the held that on the proposition that penal action cannot be taken on the estimated addition.