RAVI KIRAN AGGARWAL,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 47, MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
ITA 1967/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2017AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Shenoy, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271A
…refore, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the penalty of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- levied by the A.O. 5. Before us, the learned counsel of the assessee relied on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Mahendra C. Shah (2008) 299 ITR 305 (Guj), Sita Ram Gupta vs. ACIT (2014) 151 ITD 449 (Del), DCIT vs. Rajendra Prasad Dokania (2012) 32 CCH 260 (Ahd-Trib), DCIT vs. Tapadia & Kasliwal Associates (2015) 44 CCH 518 (Pune-Trib), Concrete Developers vs. ACIT (2013) 34 taxman.com 62 (Nagpur-Trib), AC – CC vs. M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. (ITA No. 6190/Mum/2013 (Mum- Trib) and ACIT vs. Gebilal Kanhaialal HUF (2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC). 4 The l…