TULSIANI SUMER ASSOCIATES,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1899/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 October 2021AY 2011-123 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 penalties are not leviable on estimated additions, as no case of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars could be made out. The penalties were therefore not sustainable in law.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. Penalties were levied on quantum additions of suspicious purchases, which the Tribunal had estimated at 12.5%.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is leviable on additions that are estimated by the Tribunal rather than being conclusively proved as concealed income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Ms. Aarti Vissanji – Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar – Ld. Sr. DR

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No.1899/Mum/2020
I.T.A. No. 1900/Mum/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

O R D E R

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 →