NARESH KUMAR SALERAJ PARMAR,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD-18(3)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4413/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 April 2021AY 2004-054 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) decided the matter in the absence of the assessee and without providing an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was not justifiable and was liable to be set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed, but later a search in another case revealed information about the assessee obtaining accommodation entries for bogus long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer added this amount to the assessee's income, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty and additions without providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard. Whether the penalty was confirmed on quantum additions not sustained by the ITAT.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 69,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, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR

Hearing: 28/01/2021Pronounced: 07/04/2021

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

1.

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.

2.

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

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →