MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR , PROP. M/S. S.D CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 31(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3340/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 January 2025AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition for non-genuine purchases was based on an incorrect factual premise, making the penalty not leviable. The other addition was restricted on an ad-hoc basis without concealment or inaccurate particulars, thus the penalty was not leviable on this count as well.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2008-09. The AO made additions to the total income, including for non-genuine purchases and other issues, and penalty proceedings were initiated. The CIT(A) confirmed some additions and restricted others. The assessee appealed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the additions forming the basis of the penalty are found to be factually incorrect or made on an ad-hoc basis without concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3),Section 263,Section 36(i)(iii)

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 Ashish Thakudesai, C.A
Hearing: 30/01/2025Pronounced: 30/01/2025

O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27/04/2024 by NFAC, Delhi, [hereinafter ‘the ld. CIT(A)’] pertaining to AY 2008-09.

2.

The solitary 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. 3,52,380/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2008 declaring total income of Rs.54,16,070/- 2 which were subsequently revised on 29/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs.30,82,800/-. The return was assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 06/12/2020 determining the assessed income at Rs.38,01,670/-. Assuming the powers conferred upon him by the provisions u/s 263 of the Act, the PCIT, reviewed the order pursuant to which the AO assessed the total income at Rs.1,94,32,488/-after making the following additions:- a) nongenuine purchases – Rs. 2,09,547/- b) default in depositing TDS – Rs.77,55,361/- c) not deduction of TDs on payment of conducting charges – Rs.22,50,000/- d) proportionate disallowance of interest u/s 36(i)(iii) – Rs.54,15,910/- 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the AO on nongenuine purchases of Rs. 2,09,547/- and restricted the disallowance of interest to Rs.7,27,178/- and other additions where deleted. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated on the original additions though, subsequently it was pointed out to the AO that the ld. CIT(A) has deleted other additions and has restricted the addition on account of interest to Rs.7,27,178/- which is an ad hoc addition. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who levied penalty on account of nongenuine purchases of Rs.2,09,547/- and addition of Rs.7,27,178/-. 4.1. Assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without any success. 5. Before us, the ld. Counsel drew our attention to the ledger account of M/s. Sally Décor to which the assessee credited Rs.2,09,547/- on 3

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 →