DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. GANITA TECHNOLOGIES AND SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, NARIMAN POINT

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)[for short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated

18.12.2025, for the assessment year 2010-11. The revenue has

raised following grounds of appeal.

“1.Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the act without appreciating the fact that the addition u/s 68 of the Act were made after the directors statement was recorded u/s 132(4) of the act that they were providing accommodation entries to various parties?." 2. "The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or to submit additional new ground, which may be necessary before or during the course of hearing." 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and records

are perused. At the outset, the Learned Authorised Representative

(‘Ld. AR’) of the assessee fairly submits that, the additions on the

ITA No. 2468/MUM/2026 (A.Y.: 2010-11) Ganita Technologies and Services Private Limited.

basis of which the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) dated 27.12.2013

was levied, has already been deleted by the Tribunal in the order

dated 28.03.2022 vide Miscellaneous Application (MA) No.

439/Mum/2022 arising out of ITA No.377/Mum/2021. Once the

addition is deleted in the quantum assessment, the penalty order will

not survive. The Ld.CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee

followed the decision of the Tribunal.

(‘Ld. Sr. DR’) for the revenue supported the orders of the Assessing

Officer (‘AO’).

have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We

find that the assessment was completed under Section 143(3) r.w.s

147 on 30.11.2017, wherein addition under Section 68 of Rs. 2.00

Crores was made by treating unsecured loan as non-genuine. The

additions in the quantum assessment was upheld by ld CIT(A). The

AO initiated and also levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) vide

order dated 16.03.2022. In the meantime, the assessee filed an

appeal against the order of ld CIT(A) in quantum assessment before

Tribunal, wherein the addition in the quantum assessment has been

deleted vide order dated 09.11.2023 in ITA No. 377/Mum/2021 along

with the MA No. 439/Mum/2022. Once the addition in the quantum

assessment order has been deleted the penalty under section

ITA No. 2468/MUM/2026 (A.Y.: 2010-11) Ganita Technologies and Services Private Limited.

271(1)(c) on the same addition will not survive. We find that the Ld.

CIT(A) while allowing relief to the assessee has followed the decision

of the Tribunal. Thus, we do not find any merit on the grounds of

appeal raised by revenue.

Order pronounced in open court on 08.07.2026at the time of hearing.

Sd/- Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated: 08/07/2026 Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS Aditi Pandare, PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT Mumbai (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar/DDO ITAT, Mumbai