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

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. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The Ld.AR, in argument, stated that he assesse during the filing of the return in response of notice under section 148 of the Act has made mistake and has not declared the income amount to Rs.4,97,187/-. He stated that alleged income was not stated in the Form 26AS. Accordingly, an inadvertent mistake was made in the return of income filed by the assessee. The mistake is not a deliberate one, so the levy of penalty is unjustified. 4. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee is a non-filer who filed the return of income only in response to the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. He further contended that, in the said return, the assessee had underreported income to the extent of Rs.4,37,187/-. Accordingly, the Ld. DR fully supported and relied upon the orders passed by the revenue authorities.

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. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse bearing ITA No.3385/Mum/2025 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th day of July, 2025. (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 25/07/2025 Pavanan

अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file.