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)
…ch findings are material alone and may not justify the imposition of penalty in a given case, because the considerations that arise in penalty proceedings are different from those that arise in assessment proceedings as held in Banaras Textoriun v. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782, 790, 791 (All); CIT v. Govindankutty Menon (1989) 178 ITR 509, 515 (Ker); Hotel & Allied Traders (P.) Ltd. v. CIT (1996) 221 ITR 619, 646 (Ker). In the instant case, as mentioned above, the penalty has been levied on the disallowances of the claims made by the assessee. In Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra), it is held that merely because…
