SHAILESH B. WAGHANI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (OSD-I) CEN CIR 7, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6407/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2017AY 2003-044 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 penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of estimated income. The AO must prove concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, which could not be conclusively established in this case.

What were the facts?

During a search by the Enforcement Directorate, 4000 carats of diamonds were found in the assessee's possession, but the assessee declared nil income. The AO initially assessed income at Rs. 4,00,000, which was later reduced to Rs. 1,50,000 in a fresh assessment after ITAT directions.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when income is determined on an estimated basis. Whether the AO has discharged the burden of proving concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars for penalty imposition.

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, MUMBAI BENCHES “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN (AM) & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Sushan Kotian (AR)
For Respondent: Dr. A.K. Nayak (DR)
Hearing: 13/04/2017Pronounced: 28/04/2017

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR,

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 →