SHRI. SHANTILAL J SANGHAVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1288/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 October 2021AY 2009-103 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 is not sustainable as the additions were merely estimated additions for unproved purchases. No case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars was made out against the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee was subjected to an addition of Rs. 24.64 Lacs for alleged bogus purchases. The quantum addition was later estimated at 10.12% of this amount, leading to a penalty of Rs. 74,800. The assessee had provided purchase invoices, delivery challans, and sales bills to support the purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additions are based on estimated unproved purchases, despite the assessee providing supporting documents.

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: Shri Dhawal Shah– Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri V. Vinod Kumar– Ld. DR

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2009-10 arises out of the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 08/07/2019 which has confirmed the penalty of Rs.74,800/- u/s 271(1)(c) as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 21/03/2018. The Ld. AR submitted that penalty is not sustainable since the additions are estimated additions. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, justified the penalty on the facts of the case.

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 →