Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. 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
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.
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.
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