RENAISSANCE CORPORATION LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3315/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2018AY 2011-124 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 addition was only due to a mismatch in AIR data which was a matter of reconciliation and the data in Form 26AS was modified in later financial years. Therefore, the penalty could not be sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the confirmation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars. The addition leading to the penalty was due to a mismatch in AIR data (Form 26AS) and was accepted by the assessee in the quantum assessment.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the addition is based on a data mismatch in Form 26AS which was subsequently reconciled.

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, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R

Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [AY] 2011-12 contest the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-14 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-14/IT-242/14-15 dated 29/07/2016 qua confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Rs.1.86 Lacs. The sole ground as raised in the appeal read as under:-

1.

Renaissance Corporation Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs.1,86,000/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act,1961, being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The quantum assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 13/01/2014 wherein the loss has been assessed at Rs.79.84 crores after certain addition as against loss of Rs.79.90 crores e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2011. The assessee has suffered sole addition of Rs.6,19,272/- in quantum assessment on account of mismatch in data reflected in Annual Information Report [AIR] Form 26AS. The said assessment has attained finality since no appeal has been preferred against the same.

2.

Consequently, penalty proceedings were initiated u/s 271(1)(c) in the quantum assessment and the assessee has been saddled with impugned penalty of Rs.1.86 Lacs for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not disclosing the correct income vide penalty order dated 31/07/2014. The same, upon confirmation by Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 29/07/2016, is under challenge before us.

3.

The Ld. Authorized Representative for assessee [AR], Shri. Gaurav Kabra contested the additions on legal grounds as well as on merits which were controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative Shri. Rajesh Kumar Yadav.

4.

We have heard the rival contentions. Upon due consideration, we find that the assessee, in ground of appeal, has not contested the penalty on legal grounds and therefore, no finding could be given against the same.

Renaissance Corporation Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 5. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we find that the assessee has suffered addition only because of mismatch in AIR data Form 26AS which was matter of reconciliation. Apparently, the addition has been accepted in view of the fact that the assessee already suffered huge losses in the impugned AY. The perusal of entries in Form 26AS support the submissions of Ld. AR that the data reflected therein has been modified in later financial years subsequent to filing of return of income by the assessee. In view of the stated position, the impugned penalty could not be sustained and therefore, the same stand deleted.

6.

The assessee’s appeal stand allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2018 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N.Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; �दनांकDated : 13.07.2018 Sr.PS:-Thirumalesh Renaissance Corporation Limited Assessment Year-2011-12 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 2. ��यथ�/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु�त/ CIT– concerned 5. �वभागीय��त�न�ध मुंबई , आयकरअपील�यअ�धकरण , / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड�फाईल / Guard File

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 →