MR MAYUR P. JAIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-20(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2619/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 December 2022AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the loan was received in earlier years and was continuing, Section 68 could not be invoked for the current year. Therefore, the penalty levied on such an addition was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition on the grounds that a loan shown by the assessee was not corroborated by the lender. Despite the assessee providing balance sheets from earlier years showing the loan was received in prior periods, the AO levied a penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when the addition itself is unsustainable due to the loan being from earlier years and not covered by Section 68.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

For Appellant: Shri Devendra B, Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld, DR सुनवधईकीतधरीख/
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Ld

O R D E R

Per Amit Shukla, Judicial Member:

1.

The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 17.08.2022, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in relation to penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2012-13. 2 Mr. Mayur P. Jain 2. Assessee is aggrieved by levy of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A).

3.

The facts in brief are that AO noted that assessee had shown loan from one of the party, Smt. Pistaben Sohanraj Sonigra. The addition was made by the AO on the ground that the said party is not showing the assessee as debtor for loan given to the assessee for Rs 1 lakh, whereas, the assessee has shown the same under the head ‘unsecured loan’. Though the assessee has filed the balance sheet, etc. of the said party showing that the loan was coming from earlier years, however, AO has still levied penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh and the same has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) also.

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 →