SHRI. GIRISH CHUNILAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1370/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2021AY 2011-124 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 the penalty was not justifiable as there was no record of proper service of notice on the assessee and the assessee's submissions were not taken into consideration. Therefore, the penalty was ordered to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened under Section 147. A notice under Section 142(1) was issued, to which the assessee did not appear. Consequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was levied for non-compliance. The assessee contended that notices were not properly served and their submissions were not considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) for non-appearance is justified when there is no proof of proper service of notice and the assessee's submissions were not considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147,Section 271(1)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM

Hearing: 22/09/2021Pronounced: 30/11/2021

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 wherein the penalty levied by the AO in view of the provisions u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act has been ordered to be confirmed.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The order of the Income Tax Officer and CIT(A) is bad in law.

2. The learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in confirming the penalty levied by income tax officer of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is unjustified.

3.

The appellant craves to leave, add any of the grounds of appeal

, before or at the time of hearing the said appeal."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 30.09.2011 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.4,37,695/-. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 06.04.2016 was issued for the appearance of the assessee on 20.04.2016 at about 12:10 PM. On 16.12.2016, the penalty notice u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act was issued to the assessee to show-cause as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961 should not be levied. The assessee did not comply with the notice, therefore, the penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was levied. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the penalty, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.

More judgments on Section 142(1)

All 17,244 judgments and leading authorities on Section 142(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →