RAMESH KANHAYALAL LODHA,GODIJI BUILDING ,KIKA STREET, MASJID BUNDER MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(3)(6), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS DR. SS RAO MARG PAREL MUMBAI

ITA 8294/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 March 2026AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to specify a particular charge for initiation of penalty proceedings and levying the penalty. The penalty levied was therefore liable to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the NFAC for AY 2010-11. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 49,397/- for undisclosed purchases/unexplained expenditure and levied a penalty of Rs. 15,265/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) is valid when the specific charge is not specified by the Assessing Officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRYSHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Ms. Shivali Mhatre, Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri, SR DR
Hearing: 09.03.2026Pronounced: 09.03.2026

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.10.2025, impugned herein, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short Ld. Commissioner] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [in short ‘the Act’] for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2 Ramesh Kanhayalal Lodha

2.

In the instant case, on perusing Form No.35 we observe that there was no delay in filing First Appeal before the Ld. Commissioner. However, the Ld. Commissioner con

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →