SANDEEP KEWALCHAND MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 31(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6465/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 February 2025AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6465/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sandeep Kewalchand Mehta B-3, Bldg No. 3 SaiBaba Enclave Behind CITI Centre, Goregaon West Maharashtra - 400062 [PAN: AFNPM2440Q] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/R Revenue by : Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 19/02/2025 आ1 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the penalty was validly levied as the additions were on account of bogus purchases, and only the profit element was added, indicating concealment of income. The contention that the penalty was levied on estimated profits was rejected.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order confirming a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty was based on additions made for unverified purchases, which were later restricted by the Tribunal to 12.5% as the profit element.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition is restricted to the profit element of bogus purchases, and not on estimated profits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A/R
Hearing: 13/02/2025Pronounced: 19/02/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 01/10/2024 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)], pertaining to AY 2009-10.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,84,771/- on alleged estimated profits on the addition of unverified purchases. The roots of the levy of penalty lie in the assessment order dated 30/03/2015 framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act wherein, during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, on the basis of the information received from the Sales-tax authorities, the AO came to know that the assessee has made bogus

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 →