MAHADEV PANDURANG LOTKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, LATUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 970/PUN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 June 2022AY 2010-113 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 the penalty was not maintainable as the information regarding hawala purchases came to the AO's notice through the Sales Tax/VAT Department, not from the assessee furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, the penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee originally filed a return of income, then filed a revised return adding hawala purchases. The Assessing Officer accepted the revised return. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is justified when the inaccurate particulars were not voluntarily disclosed by the assessee but discovered by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(1),Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

For Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai

आदेश / ORDER

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :

1.

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-03-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Aurangabad-2, [„CIT(A)‟] for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. The assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to hear the Ld. DR and pass order on the basis of material evidence on record.

3.

The assessee has raised three grounds of appeal, amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the penalty of Rs.66,000/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).

4.

Heard the ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee originally filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.5,16,930/- and it was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 30.06.2011. The assessee accepting the hawala purchases filed revised return of income by adding Rs.3,39,897/- totaling to Rs.7,47,603/- on 15.03.2013. The AO accepted the same vide its order dated 27.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the same. We note that in similar type of cases, this Tribunal remanded the matter to the file of AO to determine the profits on such hawala purchases which were accepted by the Revenue. If that is so, the initiation of penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the AO is not maintainable for the reason that there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars as it was only came to the information of AO by Sales Tax / VAT Department through DGIT(Inv), Mumbai. Therefore, in our opinion, penalty imposed by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars is not justified. Thus, penalty imposed by the AO and as confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is cancelled. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th June, 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पपणे / Pune; ददनधंक / Dated : 15th June, 2022. GCVSR आदेश की प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपऩलधथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Aurangabad Nashik-3 4. The PCIT-2, Aurangabad 5. DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गधर्ा फ़धइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशधनपसधर / BY ORDER, //True Copy//

वरिष्ठ निजी सनिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकि अपीलीय अनिकिण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

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 →