AMAR AJIT PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 19 (1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3939/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 December 2020AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The assessee had filed a declaration under the Vivad se Vishwas Act for settlement of the penalty demand, and this declaration was accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c). During the hearing, the assessee's representative did not appear, but the Revenue informed that the assessee had opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty order and whether the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars. However, the appeal was withdrawn due to the assessee opting for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR)
Hearing: 30/12/2020Pronounced: 30/12/2020

Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Brajendra Kumar (DR) Date of Hearing: 30/12/2020 Date of Pronouncement: 30/12/2020 O R D E R

PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM

1.

This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 08.04.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 (for short ‘the CIT(A), Mumbai, for the assessment year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the penalty order passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the ‘Act’).

2.

The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the following effective grounds:- 1. “The Penalty order dated 29.06.2017 passed u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is bad in law since the proper satisfaction was neither recorded in the notice u/s 271 (1) (c) nor in the Assessment order. The Penalty was initiated on both the limbs i.e. for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied on concealment of particulars of income which is impermissible under the law. Thus, the notice u/s 271 (1) (c) Assessment Year: 2009-10 and subsequent penalty order are bad in law and the same may be quashed and set aside.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the concealment penalty levied by the Ld. A.O. u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 2,38,961/- without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. Thus, the levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act is unjustified and the same may be deleted.”

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 →