BRIJESH JAIKISHIN RUPANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3061/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 February 2019AY 2010-114 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the penalty order, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the disputed transactions. The assessee had also not appealed against the quantum addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal was decided ex-parte. The sole issue was the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for failure to prove the genuineness of transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Soni, DR

This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-32, Mumbai, dated 23-01-2018 for the AY. 2010-11.

2.

This appeal was fixed for hearing on 30-01-2019. Notice of hearing was sent to the assessee by RPAD on the address provided by the assessee in Form No. 36 i.e. the appeal memo.

The said notice has not come back un-served and therefore, service of notice is presumed. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing and there is no request for adjournment. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is decided ex-parte qua the assessee.

3.

Ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

I have considered the submissions of Ld. DR for the Revenue and gone through the orders of the authorities below and material available on record. I find that the only issue in dispute is regarding levy of penalty of Rs. 2,15,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (Act). In Page No. 7 of his order, it was noted by the Ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not filed any appeal against the addition made and accordingly accepted the quantum addition made by the AO. Ld. CIT(A) after referring to various judgments including the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Mak Data Vs. CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), upheld the penalty order. He has given a categorical finding on page No. 13 of his order that assessee has failed to prove the genuineness and bonafides of the transactions in dispute. In the light of the facts of the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the order of CIT(A).

Accordingly, Grounds raised by assessee are rejected.

5.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1st day of February, 2019

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →