S GUPTA & COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(3)(2), MUMBAI
Facts
The Assessing Officer made an addition for bogus purchases. The ITAT in quantum proceedings restricted this addition to 12.5% on an estimated basis. The assessee was penalized under Section 271(1)(c) based on the initial addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the addition forming its basis was restricted to an estimated 12.5% by the ITAT in quantum proceedings. The basis for treating the entire purchase amount as concealed income ceased to exist.
Key Issues
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition forming its basis was restricted to an estimated amount by the Tribunal in quantum appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 271(1)(c), Section 147
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, DELHI vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084213494(1) dated 30-Dec-2025 for the Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1) Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned AO in passing order under section 271(1)(c) of the Incom
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
