MR. RAJEN RASIKLAL VORA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 26 (2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6724/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 July 2021AY 2010-114 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 merely because the assessee could not produce parties for verification or delivery challans, it cannot be treated as concealment of income, especially when the assessee had discharged its onus to prove purchases. The AO had also estimated the profit rate and not proved concealment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) estimated gross profit at 12.5% on bogus purchases and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) confirmed this penalty. The assessee appealed against the penalty confirmation.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable solely on the basis of estimated profit on purchases when the assessee has produced supporting documents, and whether the AO has proved concealment of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

Hearing: 26.07.2021Pronounced: 26.07.2021

O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal of the assessee is arising out of order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)]-38, Mumbai [in short CIT(A)], in Appeal No. CIT(A)-48/ITO-26(2)(5)/IT-465/2016-17 vide dated 29.09.2019. The Assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, ward 26(2)(5), Mumbai (in short ITO/ AO) for the A.Y. 2009- 10 vide order dated 04.01.2016 under section 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’).

1.

2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,58,217/- being 100% of tax alleged to be evaded on account of income alleged to be concealed being estimated GP and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income by the Appellant.

2.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [A] erred in confirming the penalty by rejecting all submissions and case laws without proper justification.”

3.

We have heard the learned Sr. DR and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noticed that the AO has estimated the profit rate and disallowed the same under section 69 of the Act. We noted that the AO has estimated the profit rate and disallowed the same under section 69 of the Act while observing in para 8.4 as under :-

8.4 In view of the discussion at foregoing paras, it is held that the assessee ha inflated the purchases price/ cost save din buying from unaccounted sources to the tune of ₹5,12,029/- being12.5% of non-genuine purchases of ₹40,96,236/- for the year under consideration, and the same is accordingly, disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are separately initiated fro furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and for concealing the income.

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 →