ITO 21 (1)(2), MUMBAI vs. ARTI SANJIV MALVIYA, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6915/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 December 2019AY 2009-104 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 held that penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings and not every addition necessitates a penalty. The addition was based on estimation, and the assessee had provided documentary evidence for purchases and payments.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for AY 2009-10. The penalty was imposed on an addition of Rs. 4,32,460/- made on account of bogus purchases from declared Hawala dealers.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied on an addition made purely on estimation, despite the assessee providing supporting documents.

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 VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL

For Appellant: Shri S.Michael Jerald, DR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT, Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai

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 →