SAMIR P MOMIN,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 24(3)3, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 884/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 February 2021AY 2008-094 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 while additions were sustained, the explanation provided, even if not fully accepted, along with the reduction in additions, would not be a good ground for imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on the Reliance Petroproducts Ltd. decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced additions to income for cash deposited in a bank account, explained as borrowed funds for a US Visa. The additions were progressively reduced by appellate authorities, ultimately to a peak amount of Rs. 3.85 Lacs.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee provides an explanation for cash deposits, even if not fully accepted, and subsequent appellate orders significantly reduce the additions.

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, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri. Sunil Makhija-Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr.AR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2008-09 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-42, Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.CIT(A)-42/IT-270/14-15, dated 11/01/2017 which has confirmed certain penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as levied by Ld. AO vide penalty order dated 13/04/2014. 2, The registry has noted a delay of 330 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by the assessee on the Samir P.Momin Assessment Year: 2008-09 strength of condonation petition dated 12/11/2018 which is supported by the affidavit of the assessee. It has been submitted that there was reasonable cause for delayed filing of appeal since the penalty was substantially reduced by Ld. CIT(A) and keeping in view the cost of litigation and labor involved, the assessee decided not the file further appeal. However, the department has subsequently issued notice u/s 279(2) which has led the assessee to contest the penalty since there was not any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Though Ld. DR opposed condonation, however, keeping in view the contents of the affidavit and submissions made before us we are inclined to condone the delay and proceed with adjudication of appeal on merits.

3.

The facts leading to penalty are that while framing an assessment u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2010, the assessee was saddled with quantum additions of Rs.17.58 Lacs on account of cash deposited in the bank account. The assessee explained that the money was borrowed from various persons for the purpose of obtaining US Visa. However, in the absence of satisfactory explanation, the amount was added to the income of the assessee. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.10.53 Lacs, being actual cash deposited by the assessee. The Tribunal, vide order dated 01/01/2016, restricted the additions to Rs.3.85 Lacs being peak amount.

4.

In the meanwhile, Ld. AO imposed penalty of Rs.3.49 Lacs u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income leading to concealment of income vide penalty order dated

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 →