NARESH H. SHAH,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3908/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2024AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 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 noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's non-appearance during proceedings, despite multiple opportunities. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) after providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to file a return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 and filed it only in response to a notice u/s. 148, declaring an income of Rs.19,05,913/- after a survey action. The AO treated this entire returned income as concealed income and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal because the assessee did not appear to explain the reasons for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income, despite several opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty was rightly imposed without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant and whether the penalty was rightly confirmed by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 139(1),Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 133A,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr. A.R

O R D E R

Per : Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:

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 →