SUBHASH SILK MILLS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRLE -11(2)(2), MUMBAI

O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM):

Instant appeal of the assesse was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), date of order 14/03/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD), Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai (in short, ‘the Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 10/04/2019.

2 ITA 3385/Mum /2025 Subhash Silks Mills Limited 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is a non-filer of Income tax return for the impugned assessment year. The notice of reopening was issued under section 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the assesse company filed its return of income on 13/08/2018 declaring total income amount to Rs.6,89,51,300/- in response to notice U/s 148. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and the income was determined at Rs.6,94,48,490/-, after making addition amount to Rs.4,97,187/- on account of ‘Income from house property’. The Ld.AO has treated the alleged undisclosed income under “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” and by invoking provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, penalty of Rs.1,61,315/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded was levied. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) upheld the impugned penalty order. Being aggrieved, assesse filed an appeal before us.

3 ITA 3385/Mum /2025 Subhash Silks Mills Limited 5. In our considered view, the assessee was a non-filer and filed the return of income only in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. It is evident that the assessee underreported income to the extent of Rs.4,37,187/-. This clearly falls within the ambit of “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.” Furthermore, in response to the notice under Section 148, the assessee failed to disclose this income in the return, thereby committing an additional default. Considering the income level during the relevant assessment year, the assessee was otherwise liable to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act, which he failed to do. The concealment of income was detected by the revenue authorities, and the assessee did not file the return voluntarily. Even in the return filed pursuant to the notice under Section 148, the assessee underreported the income. In view of the above facts, we find that the penalty of Rs.1,63,315/- levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned appellate order. Accordingly, the penalty is upheld.