ILA JITENDRA MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. WARD 19(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI

BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Ila Jitendra Mehta, Ward 19(1)(5), 2601, 26th Floor , Piramal Chamber, Shivtapi Apt. Mumbai, Vs. H G Marg, Gamdevi, Maharashtra - 400012 Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400007. PAN – ABDPM4231H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Ravi Ganatra, Ld. Adv Revenue by : Shri Ajay Soneji, Ld. SR. D.R. Date of Hearing : 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 13.01.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 50, Mumbai [in short, “Ld. Commissioner”], under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), for A.Y. 2013-14.

2 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta 2. In the instant case, during the assessment proceedings, the AO while considering the claim of deduction of Rs.14,99,40,084/- under Section 54 of the Act made by the Assessee, observed that the Assessee had invested only Rs.12,45,43,000/- in the property up to the date of filing of the return of income and had failed to deposit the remaining amount under the prescribed scheme or avail any other permissible option.

3 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta

The AO further held that the Assessee had concealed the particulars of its income for the year under consideration within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 thereto.

“8. Though no submission made by the appellant, based on the available documents the grounds of appeal are decided on merit as follows. Decision: [ Despite issuance of repeated notices, the appellant has failed to comply with the directions of this office. On several occasions, adjournments were sought without any substantive progress, thereby causing undue delay in the disposal of the matter. Further, the documents purportedly uploaded by the appellant on the ITBA portal are found to be corrupt and inaccessible. As a result, the essential records required for adjudication of the appeal are not available for verification. In view of the above circumstances, it is evident that the appellant has not discharged the onus of furnishing complete and reliable documents necessary for the proper consideration of the grounds of appeal. The repeated non- compliance coupled with defective submissions has rendered it impossible to adjudicate the matter. Accordingly, the appeal cannot be decided in the absence of proper and accessible documentary evidence, and the responsibility for such failure squarely rests with the appellant. The appeal is therefore dismissed. In the Result, the appeal is Dismissed.”

4 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta Considering the conduct of the Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner, it went without saying that the Assessee do not deserve any leniency and, ordinarily, the appeal could have been dismissed in limine. However, the Ld. Commissioner had expressed inability to adjudicate the appeal in the absence of the relevant submissions and documents and had held that the repeated non- compliance, coupled with defective submissions, had rendered it impossible to adjudicate the matter. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances in totality for just and proper decision of the case, particularly the fact that the Assessee had also raised a legal issue challenging the validity of the notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and that an identical penalty had also been levied in the case of the Assessee for A.Y. 2014-15, we deem it appropriate to decide the present appeal on merits.

“have concealed the particulars of your income or ………..furnished accurate particulars of such income.”

5 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta

“29. However, coming to the other aspect of the case, we observe that the AO in the Assessment order has specifically held that the Assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and therefore the penalty proceedings are also initiated separately for concealment of income, however, vide notice dated 23.12.2016 u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s 274 of the Act, issued the show cause to the Assessee for filing of inaccurate particulars of income but not for concealment of income for which the penalty proceedings were initiated. Further, vide penalty order dated 19.6.2017 the AO ultimately levied the penalty of Rs.2,28,41,404/- for deliberately filing of inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act but not for concealment of income for which the proceedings, were initiated in the assessment order. 30. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the following question emerge: "Whether the penalty levied in the instant case for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income as determined by the AO in the penalty order instead on the limb of concealment of income on which the penalty proceedings were initiated, is sustainable or not". 31. Admittedly, both the limbs are distinct from each other and having its own connotations. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery (392 ITR 4) while respectfully following the judgement rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Ashok Pai vs. CIT (292 ITR 11), has also clearly held that concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are two separate connotations. 32. On the aforesaid analyzations, we are of the considered view that where there is confusion in recording the satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings or issuing the notice u/s 274 of the Act or levy of penalty, on the limb for which no satisfaction was recorded and no

6 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta

penalty proceedings were initiated in the assessment order, then the penalty levied is un-sustainable. In simple terms, the penalty levied for "furnishing of inaccurate particular of income" as determined by the AO in the penalty order, instead of, on the limb of "concealment of income" on which the penalty proceedings were initiated, is not sustainable and liable to be deleted. Thus, the question posed, is answered accordingly. 33. Coming to the instant case, admittedly the AO had recorded the satisfaction and initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1){c} of the Act qua concealment of income, however issued notice dated 31.12.2016 u/s 271(1){c} read with section 274 of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and vide penalty order dated 19.06.2017, ultimately levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income but not for concealment of income, for which satisfaction was recorded and penalty proceedings were initiated and thus the penalty under consideration on this count as well, is liable to be deleted. Hence, we are inclined to do so. 34. Resultantly, on the aforesaid determinations made by us, the penalty on the merit as well as on legal aspect, is unsustainable, thus the same is deleted by allowed the appeal of the assessee.

7 ITA No. 3093/M/2026 Ila Jitendra Mehta

Order pronounced in the open court on 23.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (ARUN KHODPIA) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

(ANKIT SWARNKAR) Private Secretary Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench //True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.