JAYA MARKETING,MUMBAI vs. ASS CIT 12(3), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05 were deleted, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for these years did not survive. For AY 2005-06, the remaining ad-hoc additions did not warrant penalty as they did not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.
What were the facts?
The assessee contested quantum additions made by the AO for AYs 2003-04 to 2005-06. The Tribunal had previously deleted the quantum additions for AYs 2003-04 and 2004-05. For AY 2005-06, some additions were deleted, some partly confirmed, and some sent back for re-verification.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying additions are deleted by the Tribunal. Whether ad-hoc additions for want of documentation warrant penalty.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years [AY] 2003- 04 to 2005-06 contest the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as levied by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] and confirmed by Ld. first appellate authority. Since identical issues are involved, we dispose-off the same by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. & 2376/Mum/2017, AY 2003-04 & 2004-05 ITA Nos.2375-77/Mum/2017 Jaya Marketing Assessment Years-2003-04 to 2005-06 2. In AY 2003-04, the assessee being resident firm has been assessed u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 on 31/12/2009 after quantum additions of Rs.746.35 Lacs on account of low Gross Profit declared by the assessee. Consequently, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) were initiated in the quantum assessment order for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. The assessee has been saddled with impugned penalty of Rs.274.28 Lacs against the same vide penalty order dated 21/10/2011 which, upon confirmation by Ld. first appellate authority on 07/12/2016, is under appeal before us. The amount of penalty imposed for AY 2004-05, against similar addition, stands at Rs.307.60 Lacs which has also been confirmed by Ld. first appellate authority vide appellate order dated 07/12/2016.
The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Nitesh Joshi, at the outset, drew our attention to the fact that the assessee contested the quantum additions with success before this Tribunal vide 6474-75/Mum/2011 order dated 24/08/2017 wherein the quantum additions have been deleted for AYs 2003-04 & 2004-05 and therefore, the impugned penalty do not survive. The copy of the cited order has been placed before us. The Ld. DR could not controvert the aforesaid fact but submitted that the same has not yet attained finality.
Upon careful consideration of cited order, we find that the quantum additions for both the years have been deleted by the Tribunal in the following manner:- 51. In the A.Y. 2003-04 and 2004-05 AO had after reopening the assessment and rejected the books of accounts and made trading addition based on the assessment framed for A.Y.2005-06. Following the reasoning given hereinabove, we do not find any justification for rejection of books of accounts and addition so ITA Nos.2375-77/Mum/2017 Jaya Marketing Assessment Years-2003-04 to 2005-06 made by applying the G.P. rate so arrived at in A.Y.2005-06. Accordingly additions made in both the years are deleted.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026