ITO 29(3)(5), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIPUL H. PAREKH, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5536/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 March 2020AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the penalty. It was noted that the penalty would not be valid if additions were only partly confirmed and based on estimation, as per coordinate bench decisions.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer appealed against the CIT(A)'s order deleting a penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 2011-12. The penalty was related to additions made on account of bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when additions on account of bogus purchases are only partly confirmed and based on estimation.

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‘F’ BENCH, MUMBAI

Assessment year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Ward 29(3)(5), Mumbai ……………….………Appellant Vs Vipul H Parekh ……………………Respondent Parekh Steel Co, E 10 Konar Indraprastha Near Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund West, Mumbai 400 080 [PAN: AACPP2601G] Appearances by Vinay Sheel Gautamfor the appellant Manoj Mundra for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: : December 19,2019 March 12th ,2020 Date of pronouncement : ORDER Per Bench: This appeal, filed by the Assessing Officer, is directed against the order dated 24th 1. June 2018 passed by the CIT(A) in the matter of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12.

2.

Grievance of the appellant, in substance, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs 54,196 imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

As learned representatives fairly agree, learned CI(A) has deleted the impugned additions by following various orders of the coordinate benches holding that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) will not hold good in law where alleged additions on account of bogus purchases has been only partly confirmed by the CIT(A), entirely based on estimation. Learned Departmental Representative accepts this factual position but relies upon the order of the Assessing Officer nevertheless. In view of the smallness of amount, and view of direct decisions of the coordinate benches in favour of the assessee on the same point, he does not pursue the matter further beyond placing reliance, and somewhat bland reliance, on the stand of the Assessing Officer.

Assessment year: 2011-12 Page 2 of 2

4.

In view of the above positions, looking to the smallness of amount and looking to a large number of judicial precedents in favour of the assessee, on materially similar facts, we see no need to interfere in the matter. We approve the conclusions arrived at by the learned CIT(A) and decline to interfere in the matter.

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 →