No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR
O R D E R
PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -33, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”] relevant to the A.Y. 2004-05.
The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “
1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by confirming the penalty of Rs.3,24,922/- without considering the submission made through e-proceeding and also on official mail. A.Y.2004-05
2. The Ld. CIT(A) also erred by confirming the subject penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on Quantum additions, not sustained by Hon’ble ITAT
3. Your appellant prays to add to alter to amend any of the grounds of appeal.”
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 12.10.2004 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.1,42,825/-. Thereafter, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the I. T. Act, 1961 on 19.03.2005 accepting the returned income. The notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 13.06.2011 was issued and served upon the assessee and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 09.06.2011 was issued and served upon the assessee. In this case, the information received from the Dy. Director of Income tax (Inv.), Unit-1(4), Mumbai, that a search & seizure action u/s 132 of the I. T. Act was conducted in the case of M/s. Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd. on 25.11.2009. The information received that the assessee through M/s. Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. had taken the accommodation entries for bogus long term capital gain of Rs.9,60,503.90/- (say 9,60,504/-). After the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition of the total bogus purchase of Rs.9,60,504/- u/s 69 of the I. T. Act. which was added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.20,63,830/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee an appeal before the CIT(A) who confirmed the order of the AO, therefore, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us.
5. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the Department and have gone through the case carefully. In fact, the Ld. Representative of the assessee did not appear before us. On appraisal of the order passed by the CIT(A), we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the