MR. SHEKHAR DADARKAR , PROP. M/S. S.D CONSTRUCTION ,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 31(3), MUMBAI
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
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
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.
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)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026