ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(3)(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs. MANISHA MANISH JAITHA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1955/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2026AY 2007-084 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions on which the penalty was based were deleted by a coordinate bench, no penalty can survive. The Revenue's appeal was therefore dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was imposed for non-disclosure of a foreign bank account and income.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying quantum additions have been deleted. The issue also involves the non-disclosure of foreign assets and income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR
Hearing: 14.05.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & HON’BLE SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1955-1956/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2007-08 and 2009-10)

Assistant Commissioner of Manisha Manish Jaitha Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), 2B, Brighton No.2 D Mumbai Rungta Lane, Room No.649, 06th Floor, Vs. Napeansea Road, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai - 400006 Road, Mumbai - 400020 PAN/GIR No. AACPJ8155F (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Ms. Bijal Khara Revenue by Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR AR Date of Hearing 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/CIT(A) for the assessment year 2007-08. The following grounds are reproduced below: 1. 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 Income-tax Act, 1961 without examining the nature of

2 ITA No. 1955 and 1956/Mum/2026 additions made in the reassessment proceedings, which arose from deliberate non-disclosure of a foreign bank account and foreign income, amounting to concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was levied on account of non-disclosure of foreign assets and related income, which constitutes a serious default, and not merely on account of a debatable or technical addition. 3. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering that the assessee had not disclosed the foreign bank account with HSBC Private Bank, Zurich in the original return of income, and such non-disclosure itself attracts penalty u/s 271(1)(c), irrespective of the ultimate outcome of the quantum proceedings. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the above grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing, in the interest of justice.

2.

At the very outset, we noticed that the AO had levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. However, the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, vide order dated 02.08.2021, had deleted the quantum additions. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the facts of the case, allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the penalty.

3.

After considering the facts, we also find that once the quantum additions have already been deleted, no penalty

3 ITA No. 1955 and 1956/Mum/2026 survives thereafter. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A) has taken a conscious decision which needs no interference.

4.

Even otherwise, no new facts or circumstances have been placed on record by the Ld. DR except that the Department has filed an appeal against the order of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT deleting the quantum additions. Thus, in our view, this cannot be a ground for sustaining the penalty, as in case the appeal filed by the Department is allowed by the Hon’ble High Court, then in that eventuality the Department will be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Department stand dismissed.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Department stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 20/05/2026 RY-Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2.

4 ITA No. 1955 and 1956/Mum/2026 संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण,मुम्बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

उि/सहायक िंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, मुम्बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →