HUSH INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4828/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2016AY 2008-093 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine a key witness, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were vitiated.

What were the facts?

During a search, a diary entry indicated a cash payment of Rs. 5,80,960/- to the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for this unaccounted cash, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) and ITAT. Subsequently, a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was levied.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was validly imposed without granting the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of a crucial witness. Whether procedural fairness was observed in the penalty proceedings.

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, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Milwani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Chandekar, DR
Hearing: 28.04.2016Pronounced: 20.07.2016

सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 28.04.2016 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.07.2016 आदेश / O R D E R

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee on 21.7.2014 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 12.5.2014 in connection with confirming of the penalty of Rs. 1,79,430/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

2.

Briefly stated relevant facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in pillows, waddings, mattress and filling fabrics and commission agents. During the year under consideration, assessee supplied pillows, mattress to M/s. Ennoble Hotel. There was a search and seizure action u/s 132 / 133A of the Act on Shri G. Janarthan Reddy Group of cases and on the said Ennoble Hotel. A diary was seized wherein a entry was found showing the transaction of payment of cash amounting to Rs. 5,80,960/- to the assessee-company. During the assessment proceedings, AO made addition of the same being unaccounted cash. CIT (A) confirmed the same and ITAT also affirmed the decision of the CIT (A) / AO on merits. During penalty proceedings, on completion of the procedural part granted an opportunity of being heard to the assessee as required under the statute and levied the minimum penalty of Rs. 1,79,430/-. CIT (A) confirmed the same despite the denial of the assessee that it ever received any cash from M/s. Ennoble Hotel. Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

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 →