Shoe Crafters, Mumbai vs. DCIT 17(2), Mumbai
In the result, the appeal is allowed
ITA 3264/MUM/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2004-05
Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 M/S Shoe Crafters, 204, Dy. Commissioner Of Wadala Udhyog Bhavan, Income Tax 17(2), Vs. Naigon Cross Road, Piramal Chambers 6Th Wadala, Mumbai-400031. Floor, Lalbaug, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400012. Pan No. Aaifs5140H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Mukesh B. Advani, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 30/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31/10/2018 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2004-05. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32 [In Short ‘Cit(A)’], Mumbai & Arises Out Of The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Read As Under: 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 Amounting To Rs.4,46,812/-, In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant, Has Neither Concealed Any Particulars Of Income
For Appellant: Mr. Mukesh B. Advani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(2)(b)
…firmed the disallowance only because of the fact that the assessee- company could not prove that the services were actually rendered by Shri Abhir Khanna during the relevant period. Relying on the decision in UOI v. Dharmendra Textiles Processors & Ors (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC), the Ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee had deliberately not disallowed the payment to related parties u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. M/s Shoe Crafters 4 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have confirmed the penalty of Rs.4,46,812/- cal…
