RAMESH L. JAIN HUF,MUMBAI vs. ITO, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRICHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.3888/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) Ramesh L. Jain HUF Prop. of Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(3)(1), Ramdev Impex Mumbai 138 Room No.29, 3rd floor, M.G. Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai- Vs. Mahimtura Marg, 400012 3rdKhumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400004 PAN: AAJHR8745Q Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Shri Sohail Jain Assesseeby : Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Revenueby : 24.07.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 03.08.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee, directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 03.02.2026 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, arises from the assessment order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short,“the Act”] dated 30.03.2019, passed byIncome Tax Officer – 19(3)(1), Mumbai [in short,“the Ld.AO”].The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

ITA No. 3888/Mum/2026 Ramesh L. Jain HUF “1 The leamed Assessing Officer erred in law in imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the Appellant vide order dated 30 March, 2019 2 The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in law in confirming the penalty imposed, and in dismissing the Appellant's appeal to him. 3 The penalty order is without jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that the addition to the Total Income (in respect of which the penalty has been imposed) was made on an estimation basis, for which reason no penalty is imposable. Reliance is placed on (i) the judgment dated 16th September, 2025 of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT v. Colo Colour Pvt Ltd, in Tax Appeal No 48/2022 and (ii) the Order of the Mumbai Bench of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in Bhairav Tube (India) v. ITO [ITA No 5494/Mum/2025 dt. 2 March, 2026] 4 The penalty order is without jurisdiction, it having been passed without the prior approval of the Joint Commissioner having been obtained and, therefore, being in breach of Section 274(2)(a) 5 The penalty order is without jurisdiction, having regard to the fact that, in the Notice by which the penalty proceedings were initiated, the inapplicable or irrelevant portion was not struck off and the penalty proceedings were initiated on one ground and concluded on another ground 6 That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal if and when necessary.” 2. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR that in the present case a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied, on account of an estimated addition of Rs.48,35,997/- having allegation of non-genuine purchases by the assessee. It is further submitted that the quantum addition was also challenged by the assessee before the ITAT “D” Bench Mumbai which is decided in ITA No.7057/Mum/2017 for AY 2010-11 vide order dated 13.03.2019, wherein the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) was set aside for fresh adjudication on merits. It was therefore, the prayer that the issue of penalty needs to be set aside to the file

ITA No. 3888/Mum/2026 Ramesh L. Jain HUF of Ld. CIT(A) to decide it afresh under conjoint adjudication of the appeal against the quantum addition.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03-08-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (ARUN KHODPIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated :03-08-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS 3

ITA No. 3888/Mum/2026 Ramesh L. Jain HUF

Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai