ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1146/PUN/2023Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 March 2024Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 a disallowance or addition does not automatically attract a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). It noted the absence of independent findings by the lower authorities to establish concealment of taxable income, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerned a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2013-14. The penalty was imposed due to cash deposits of Rs. 11,00,000/- which were considered concealed income by the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits represented concealed income attracting penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and whether penalty proceedings are automatically attracted by every addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 04.03.2024Pronounced: 04.03.2024

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1146/PUN./2023 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2013-2014 Shri Ulka Madhukumar Shinde, Sector-11, Plot The ACIT, 22CR, W3V, Income No.35, Kamothe – 410 209 vs. Tax Office, PANVEL – 400 614. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN DIYPS5785R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 04.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/ 1056596960(1), dated 27.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in levying the impugned sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.3,39,900/- in Assessing Officer’s order dated 05.02.2022 as upheld in the NFAC’s detailed discussion, Shri Basavaraj vehemently argued that the assessee could not rebut the clinching findings that his cash

2 ITA.No.1146/PUN./2023 deposits amounting to Rs.11,00,000/- had represented concealed income. I find no merit in the Revenue’s instant vehement contentions as quantum and penalty proceedings have already been held to be parallel in nature wherein each and every disallowance/ addition does not automatically attract the latter penal provision as held by hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). There are no independent findings in both the learned lower authority(ies) respective orders as to how it is an instance of concealment of taxable income. I accordingly delete the impugned penalty. The assessee succeeds in his sole substantive grievance. Ordered accordingly.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.

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 →