SHAMIM ABDUL RAUF SHAIKH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 23(3)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1059/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2026AY 2015-164 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's actual case and instead relied on facts from another appeal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for AY 2015-16. The CIT(A) passed an order considering facts of a different case, including a different assessment year and reason for addition (bogus purchases).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the correct facts and grounds of appeal, or if the decision was based on an entirely different case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 50C,Section 270A,Section 250,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAILSHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Chapekar
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, SR. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No. 1059/Mum./2026 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Shamim Abdul Rauf Shaikh, 102, Shale Rock, Somnath Lane, Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 ……………. Appellant PAN : AMFPS9760C v/s

Income Tax Officer, Ward – 23(3)(3), 1st Floor, R.No.-126, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Grant Road (W), ……………. Respondent Mumbai – 400007

Assessee by : Shri Prashant Chapekar Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, SR. DR

Date of Hearing – 16/04/2026 Date of Order – 04/05/2026

O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 25.11.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2015-16.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: -

2 ITA No. 1059/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16)

“1. The learned CIT (A) erred in not dealing with the facts of the appeal matter and has apparently erroneously decided the appeal by referring to the facts and grounds of appeal of the some other appellant and not that of the appellant Shamim Abdul Rauf Shaikh. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in disregarding the submissions made in the appeal and has apparently decided the matter relying on facts and submissions made in the appeal of some other appellant and not that of the appellant Mrs.Shamim Abdul Rauf Shaikh. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating that the appellant had made the disclosure of the stamp duty value in the Retur of Income and thereby there is no concealment of the facts. 4. The learned CIT (A) erred in facts and in law in not appreciating the correct facts in the matter and that the penalty is levied on the notional income assessed u/s 50C.”

3.

During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, submitted that the learned CIT(A) decided the appeal filed by the assessee after considering the facts of some other case.

4.

From the perusal of the record, we find that during the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 21.10.2015, declaring a total income of Rs.12,58,770/-. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny, and vide order dated 27.11.017 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) made an addition under section 50C of the Act. Consequently, the AO vide order dated 18.05.2018 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied a penalty of Rs.1,69,795/-.

5.

However, from the perusal of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), we find that the learned CIT(A) in the very first paragraph has noted that the appeal arises from the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act. Further, it has been noted that the assessment year involved is 2018- 19. In paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the learned CIT(A) has taken into

3 ITA No. 1059/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16)

consideration the fact that the addition was made on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, considering these facts, the learned CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the penalty to 20%, as the addition to that extent of purchase was upheld.

6.

Therefore, it is evident that the learned CIT(A), while deciding the appeal filed by the assessee, has considered the facts of an altogether different case and the facts involved in the case of the assessee were not considered at all. Thus, we restore the appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after taking into consideration the facts involved in the case of the assessee. With the above direction, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04/05/2026

Sd/- Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 04/05/2026 Prabhat

4 ITA No. 1059/Mum/2026 (A.Y. 2015-16)

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

Assistant Registrar 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 →