MANISH G. MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 7, MUMBAI

This appeal filed by the assessee on22.3.2011 is against the order of the CIT (A)-28, Mumbai in connection with the penalties levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee, who is an individual, filed the return of income originally u/s 139(1) of the Act. However, in pursuance to the proceedings u/s 132 r.w.s 153A of the Act, assessee filed the return of income declaring the total income of Rs. 9,94,201/-. The said return of income was accepted by the AO and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of the Act. However, AO levied the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the said total income assessed by the AO. Matter travelled to the first appellate authority and the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.

Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the order of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Pushpa G. Mehta, L/H of Late Ashish G. Mehta, who is the brother of the assessee. Bringing our attention to the facts of the said case, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that under similar circumstances, the penalty was deleted. In support of the same, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to para 6 of the said Tribunal’s order in (2002-2003), dated 2.1.2013.

After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the said order of the Tribunal (supra) in the case of Smt. Pushpa G. Metha, we find the facts are comparable. Para 6 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra) is relevant in this regard. Considering the significance of the para 6 of the said Tribunal’s order (supra) and for the sake of completeness of this order, the same is extracted as under:- “6. In the case before us, we observe that the assessee filed the return u/s 153A of the Act voluntarily declaring the excess income and the AO assessed the income as declared by the assessee in the return filed. Further, it is not the case of the Department that the excess income declared by the assessee in the return filed u/s 153A viz-a-viz the return of income filed u/s 139(1) is in pursuance to any incriminating material found during the course of search. We are of the considered view that the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. Hence, we cancel the penalty by allowing the ground of appeal