Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tisya Jewels, Mumbai
In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are accordingly partly allowed
ITA 870/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2025AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2007-08 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer- 23(3)(1), Tisya Jewels Mumbai G-2 Sagar Fortune, 184 525A, 5Th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Waterfield Road, Bandra West, Parel, Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400050 Pan No. Aadft 8056 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Nishit Gandhi A/W Ms. Aadnya Bhandari Revenue By : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Cit-Dr
For Appellant: Mr. Nishit Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 298
…made on estimate basis, no penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, can be imposed as per the ratio laid down in the case of CIT v. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar [I.T. Appeal No. 13 of 1999, dated 3-12008]" (b) CIT v. Arjun Prasad Ajit Kumar, (2008) 214 CTR 355 (All.): The assessee was a country liquor contractor/vendor. In the assessment proceedings, the account books of the assessee were rejected on the ground that the sales alleged by the assessee were not verified. Thereafter, sales were estimated and penalty was imposed under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal held that even though the assessee's expl…
