MR AMRRUT GADA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-9(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2550/MUM/2013Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 April 2018AY 2007-083 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the same addition had been restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the present appeal concerning the penalty was also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,07,453/- on account of unexplained credits under Section 68. The CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the AO under Section 271(1)(c) on this addition. The assessee appealed against the penalty order.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is sustainable when the quantum appeal leading to the addition has been restored for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, HONBLE & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Dr. Prayag Jha, A.R
For Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen,D.R
Hearing: 02/04/2018

Date of hearing : 02/04/2018. Date of pronouncement : 04/04/2018. O R D E R

PER RAVISH SOOD, JUDICLA MEMBER

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-20, Mumbai, dated 22/01/2013, which in itself arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, ‘Act’), dated 25/03/2011. The assessee assailing the order of the CIT(A) upholding the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act had raised before us the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of Rs. 13,48,909/- in spite of the fact that the appellant had not concealed the particulars of his Amrutlal Gada vs. ACIT- A.Y 2007-08 income nor had he furnished inaccurate particulars of income.”

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment order under section 143(3) of the Act was passed in the case of the assessee fo A.Y 2007-08 on 30/12/2009, determining its total income at Rs. 65,62,073/-, as against its returned income of Rs. 25,54,620/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 40,07,453/- on account of unexplained credits under section 68 of the Act, based on the documents impounded during the course of survey proceedings conducted at the premises of M/s. Bhavin Glass House, Shop No.6, Yashodham Apts., Building No.3, J.P. Road, 4-Bungalows, Andheri (W), Mumbai-53. The appeal filed by the assessee against the quantum assessment before the CIT(A) was dismissed, vide his order dated 24/12/2010. The Assessing Officer, after passing of the order by the CIT(A), vide his order dated 25/03/2011 imposed a penalty of Rs. 13,48,909/- in respect of the aforementioned addition of Rs. 40,07,453/- made in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) in appeal before the CIT(A). The contentions of the assessee did not find favour with the CIT(A), who thus upheld the penalty of Rs.13,48,909/- imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

The assessee, being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) had carried the matter in appeal before us. We find that as the quantum appeal of the assessee for the year under consideration, viz. A.Y 2007-08, marked as had been restored by us to the file of the CIT(A)

Amrutlal Gada vs. ACIT- A.Y 2007-08 for fresh adjudication in terms of specific directions given therein, therefore, we restore the present matter also to the file of the CIT(A), who shall dispose of the same afresh, after disposing of the aforesaid quantum appeal.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order Pronounced in open Court on this 04th day of April, 2018.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →