KISHORKUMAR MOHANLAL VYAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-29(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6377/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 June 2019AY 2009-103 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 assessee cannot be compelled to furnish the same information again due to a change in the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the penalty levied for non-compliance with subsequent notices was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee faced penalty under Section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance with notices after additions were made for bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer had previously granted relief after receiving explanations, reducing the addition to 12.5%.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is leviable for non-compliance with notices when the assessee had already provided necessary information and explanations during the assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H” Bench, Mumbai

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM)

For Appellant: Shri C.V. Jain
For Respondent: Shri M.K. Singh
Hearing: 27.3.2019Pronounced: 11.6.2019

Heard together (4 matters)

I.T.A. No. 6377/Mum/2017
I.T.A. No. 6378/Mum/2017
I.T.A. No. 6379/Mum/2017
I.T.A. No. 6380/Mum/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :

1.

These are four appeals by the assessee against levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act of Rs. 10,000/- each for two defaults each for A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that in income tax appeal in this regard additions were made on account of bogus purchases. After receiving explanation from the assessee the Assessing Officer has granted relief to the assessee in as much as he has disallowed only 12.5% of the bogus purchases. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, there was change of incumbent. The Assessing Officer again issued notices. These were reportedly not complied, hence penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs. 10,000/- each was levied.

2 Shri Kishorkumar Mohanlal Vyas Assessee’s explanation in this regard is that the assessee has given all necessary information and explanation for the assessment in this regard. We note that after receipt of necessary information and explanation, assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Addition on account of bogus purchases was reduced by the Assessing Officer after considering assessee’s explanation and information to 12.5%. The Assessing Officer noted that there was change of incumbent and new incumbent has again issued notices which have not been complied with. In our considered opinion when the assessee has submitted all necessary information and explanation, just because there is change in incumbent, assessee cannot be asked to furnish the same information again, and in absence thereof penalty cannot be levied. Hence, in our considered opinion on the facts and circumstances of the case the assessee has provided all necessary information and explanation and the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(b) is totally uncalled for and unsustainable. Hence, in the background of the aforesaid discussion, we set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the penalty.

3.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed.

Order has been pronounced in the Court on 11.6.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →