Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “ F ”, MUMBAI
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण मुंबई पीठ “एफ़ ”, मुंबई �ी �वकास अव�थी, �या�यक सद�य एवं �ी एस. �रफौर रहमान, लेखा सद�य के सम� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “ F ”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.1694/मुं/2022 (�न.व. 2008-09) (A.Y.2008-09) Mr. Vishwajit C. Chindarkar, M/s. CH & Co., Shop No.5, Gr.Floor, Neelkanth Shopping Arcade, Mumbai 400 071. PAN: ACXPC-8042-M. ...... अपीलाथ� /Appellant बनाम Vs. The DCIT – 22(2), Mumbai. ..... ��तवाद�/Respondent अपीलाथ� �वारा/ Appellant by : None ��तवाद� �वारा/Respondent by : Ms. Vranda U Matkarni सुनवाई क� �त�थ/ Date of hearing : 22/08/2022 घोषणा क� �त�थ/ Date of pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER VIKASH AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ion short ‘ the CIT(A) ] dated 28/03/2022 for the Assessment Year 2008-09, confirming penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short ‘the Act’].
The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27/12/2010 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act inter-alia made addition of Rs.49,54,600/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of aforesaid addition were initiated. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 14/03/2013 levied penalty of Rs.16,84,068/- in respect of the aforesaid addition. The assessee remained unsuccessful before the CIT(A) in quantum proceedings. Thereafter, the assessee filed appeal in before the Tribunal, inter-alia, assailing the addition of Rs.49,54,600/- confirmed by the CIT(A) . The Tribunal vide order dated 13/09/2017 deleted the said addition. The assessee in the mean time filed appeal against the order levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) vide impugned order upheld the levy of penalty. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee.
Since, the addition on which penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied has been deleted by the Tribunal vide (supra), the penalty does not survive.