ACIT-23(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANIL KISHANCHAND BHATIA, MUMBAI

“Whether on th CIT(A) has erre 271(1)(c) of the Tax Departmen beyond doubt t who was involv purchases and bogus purchas and deliberatel his income deri

Whether on the CIT(A) has erre 271(1)(c) of th explained the r of decision in t AHD.), by mak purchases of R

"Whether on th CIT(A) has erre u/s 271(1)(c) o conscious conc failure to furnis which attracts thereto, as held 251 ITR 99 (SC

"Whether on th CIT(A) has erre 271(1)(c) of the Court in the CI relevant in the assessee did n the concealed i

At the outset, w neither anyone adjournment w opinion that th the present app A IT he facts and circumstances of the case an ed in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 1,0 e Act, by ignoring the fact that the Maha nt thru DGIT (Investigation Wing) Mumbai that M/s. Sandeep Enterprises was a ha ved in providing only accommodation ent d assessee has availed accommodatio es of Rs. 3,29,006/- from M/s. Sandeep ly concealed and furnished inaccurate p ived by obtaining accommodation entries? e facts and circumstances of the case an ed in deleting the penalty levied of Rs. 1, he Act, by ignoring the fact that AO reasons of leaving the penalty and follow the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd (1996 king addition to the extent of 25% of the s. 13,16,026/- e facts and circumstances of the case an ed right in deleting the penalty levied of R of the Act, by ignoring the fact that t cealment of particulars of income and sh accurate particulars of the income by t the provision of section 271(1)(c) and d in the care of K.P. Madhusudhan Vs. CI C) ?" e facts and circumstances of the case an ed in deleting the penalty levied of of 1,0 e Act, by ignoring the observations of H IT Vs Chanchal Katiyal 173 Taxman 71(a e facts and circumstances of this case not furnish particulars or inaccurate exp ncome penalty la justified ?".” we may like to mention that d attended on behalf of the as was sought and, therefore, w he assessee was not interested peal. The appeal was accord nil Kishanchand Bhatia 2 TA No. 720/MUM/2025 nd in law, Ld. 01,663/- u/s arashtra Sale i, has proved awala trader, tries of bogus n entries of p Enterprises particulars of ?" nd in law, Ld 01,663/-u/s has deeply wing the ratio 6 58 ITD 428 e total bogus nd in law, Ld. Rs 1,01,663/- there was a a deliberate the assessee explanation IT reported in nd in law, Ld. 01,663/- u/s Hon'ble High all), which is e, that if the planation for despite notifying ssessee nor any we were of the d in prosecuting ingly heard ex- party qua the a departmental re 3. We have perus dispute and oth case the CIT(A) officer for two proceeding has Tribunal and, th does not survi decisions, penal is liable to be d in quantum pro has been resto order on which penalty which is cannot survive. issue in dispute any infirmity in grounds of th dismissed. 4. In the result, ap Order pronoun (KAVITHA RA JUDICIAL M A IT assessee after hearing the argum epresentative. ed order of the Ld. CIT (A) on her relevant material on record. has deleted the penalty levied b reasons. Firstly, the quantu been restored to the file of herefore, penalty levied by the a ive. Secondly, relying on co lty levied on the basis of the est eleted. In our opinion, once the oceedings order has been set-as ored for fresh adjudication, th penalty was levied, stands set s arising from the said assessm In our opinion, the order of l e is well reasoned , accordingly n the same and, we upheld he appeal of the Revenue a ppeal of the Revenue is dismisse ced in the open Court on 13/0 AJAGOPAL) (OM PRAK MEMBER ACCOUNTA nil Kishanchand Bhatia 3 TA No. 720/MUM/2025 ments of the Ld. n the issue and In the instant by the assessing um assessment the AO by the assessing officer ordinate bench timated addition e appellate order side and matter e very basis of -aside, then the ment proceedings d CIT(A) on the y, we don’t find the same. The are accordingly ed. 03/2025. /- KASH KANT) ANT MEMBER