JAYAMALA SUTRAVE,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 24 & 26, 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 returned income was accepted by the AO and the assessment was not made under Section 153A, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty was wrongly levied.
What were the facts?
Following a search action, the assessee filed a return of income disclosing Rs. 5,18,254/- as income from other sources, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The AO initiated penalty proceedings for insufficient proof of source of income.
What were the issues?
Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied when returned income is accepted and assessment is not under Section 153A.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 271(1)(c),Section 153A,Section 139(1),Section 132,Section 139(4),Section 143(1),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 271AAA
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, AM
सुनवाई क� तार�ख / : 19.10.2016 Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख / : 11 .11.2016 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per N. K. Pradhan, A. M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai and arises out of penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’).
(A.Y. 2011-12) Mrs. Jayamala Sutrave vs. Dy. CIT
The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs.71,741/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) not appreciating the submission that the assessment under consideration was not pursuant to return filed u/s 153A ; that the assessee had filed the return of income u/s 139(1); that there was no addition of income made in the assessment i.e. the returned income had been accepted as the assessed income; that in such circumstances there was no question of concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act or under any provisions of the Act and that in view of provisions of section 271AAA the penalty was wrongly initiated and levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of Transworld Furtichem Pvt. Ltd. group of cases on 11.02.2011 and the assessee was covered in the said action. Pursuant to the search, the assessee filed a return of income declaring total income at Rs.9,26,713/-. In the said return income, the assessee disclosed Rs.5,18,254/- as income under the head ‘income from other sources’. It was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer (AO) that the above sum of Rs.5,18,254/- comprises of interest received on savings bank account and loan given for which the details were not readily available. The AO had initiated the penalty proceedings by issuing notice u/s. 271(1)(c) for the reason that the assessee had not given sufficient proof/details of the source of income. The AO also imposed a penalty @ 100% on the income of Rs.5,18,254/- which comes to Rs. 71,741/- as the assessee had not filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A).
(A.Y. 2011-12) Mrs. Jayamala Sutrave vs. Dy. CIT 4. The ld. CIT(A) came to a finding that subsequent to the search on 11.02.2011, the assessee filed a return of income for the impugned assessment year on 27.4.2012. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the assessee that the return of income was filed voluntarily. Also the ld. CIT(A) found that the explanation given by the assessee is not corroborated by relevant materials / documents. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty of Rs.71,741/- imposed by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
None appeared on behalf of the appellant.
The ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the penalty of Rs.71,741/- levied by the AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.
We have perused the relevant material on record and heard the ld. DR. We find that the assessee filed her return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 27.04.2012 declaring total income at Rs.9,26,713/-. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. After issuing notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act, the AO made an assessment u/s 143(3) on 20.03.2013 accepting the returned income of Rs.9,26,713/- disclosed by the assessee. Thus from the assessment order passed by the AO, it is evident that the assessment in the present case has not been made u/s 153A of the Act. There is provision in the Act for filing belated return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act. Also we have mentioned hereinabove that the AO has accepted the returned income of Rs.9,26,713/- shown by the assessee. So this is not the case where one can infer concealment of income or inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.71,741/- imposed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is deleted.
(A.Y. 2011-12) Mrs. Jayamala Sutrave vs. Dy. CIT
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. प�रणामतः �नधा�रती क� अपील क� जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on November 11 , 2016
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 →- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Ut Corp vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026
- Sunrise Engineering vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026