UMESH SHETTY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 25 (1)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6788/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 November 2021AY 2008-093 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 since the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was based on an estimate, the assessee could not be accused of concealing income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a return of income, but the Assessing Officer (AO) added back a significant cash deposit of Rs. 34,60,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. Subsequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was imposed.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be imposed when the addition sustained is based on an estimate and not on concrete evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “F”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Hearing: 11/11/2021Pronounced: 24/11/2021

O R D E R

PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM

1.

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 26.09.2019 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai confirming the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the addition sustained in the quantum proceeding for the assessment year 2008- 09.

2.

When the appeal was taken up for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal is decided ex–parte qua the assessee after hearing the learned Departmental Representative and based on materials on record.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →