HUSH INDIA P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(2)(1), MUMBAI
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?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
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:
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.
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)
- 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 →- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026