SUNIL SHANTILAL MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4576/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2026AY 2002-038 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sunil Shantilal Mehta, is appealing an order dated 24/02/2026 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) which confirmed a penalty of Rs. 36,400 levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The penalty was for failing to submit a statement of an alleged bank account or a duly signed consent waiver form. The AO had reopened the assessee's case for Assessment Year 2002-03 based on information from France about a Swiss bank account. The assessee denied having such an account, despite an earlier statement to the Investigation Wing admitting to one that was allegedly closed. The assessee also refused to sign a Consent Waiver Form. The AO added Rs. 28,20,000 as undisclosed income and imposed the penalty.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice under Section 272A(2)(c) was issued in consequence of the assessee's failure to submit documents specified in a notice under Section 133(6), prior to the initiation of reassessment proceedings. Although the reassessment proceedings were later quashed, the penalty survived. However, following the ratio of the Co-ordinate Bench decision in Jay Ketan Parikh v. Addl. CIT, the Tribunal found that the assessee was asked to execute a document (Consent Waiver Form) rather than produce a document already in his possession. The provision under Section 133(6) read with Section 272A(2)(c) does not cover a situation where the assessee is compelled to execute a document. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Ld. AO to delete the penalty of Rs. 36,400/-. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 36,400/- under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for not submitting a statement of an alleged bank account or a duly signed consent waiver form. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that penalty can only be initiated for failure to produce documents in his control and possession, not for documents that do not relate to him or are not in his possession. He contended that signing the Consent Waiver Form would be detrimental without authenticating the information sought. The assessee relied on the decision in Jay Ketan Parikh v. Addl. CIT. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A), contended that the assessee willfully failed to produce the required documents and that the non-furnishing of the bank statement and Consent Waiver Form was a strategy to conceal transactions in an undisclosed bank account. The Ld. CIT(A) noted the specific details provided by France and the linkage of the impugned account with other family accounts, as well as the assessee's prior admission.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 272A(2)(c),Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 131(1),Section 272A(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE & SMT RATNA DASGUPTA

For Appellant: Ms. Jayshree Thakur (Sr. DR)
For Respondent: Ms. Jayshree Thakur (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 04/09/2026Pronounced: 22/09/2026

PER BENCH

The captioned appeal by the assessee arises from order, dated 24/02/2026, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [Ld. CIT(A)] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - hereinafter referred to as "the Act"- for A.Y. 2002-03, confirming penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 272A(2)(c) of the Act.

Sunil Shantilal Mehta 2

2.

The only ground of appeal raised by the assessee reads as follows:- i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 36,400/- under section 272A(2)(c) of Incom

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 272A(2)(c)

All 114 judgments and leading authorities on Section 272A(2)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →