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

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2331/MUM/2011Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 September 2016AY 2002-033 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 since the additional income was voluntarily declared in the revised return filed under section 153A, and not based on any incriminating material found during the search, the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not justified. The penalty was cancelled.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return of income under section 153A after a search, declaring additional income. The Assessing Officer (AO) accepted this declared income but levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal against the penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under section 271(1)(c) is leviable when additional income is voluntarily declared in a return filed under section 153A, without any incriminating material being found during search.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 153A,Section 139(1),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAVISH SOOD

For Appellant: Shri Darshan Gandhi
Hearing: 08.09.2016Pronounced: 23.09.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 08.09.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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

taken by the assessee.”

5. Considering the above settled position of the issue on identical facts, we are of the opinion, there is no case for levy of penalty in the present case. Hence, we respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal allow the grounds raised by the assessee.

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 →