ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ashok Bhimrao Mokashi, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0
ITA 7053/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2016AY 2009-10
Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)
For Appellant: Shri Reepal TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramachandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)
…y u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act . The assesseee did not have any further evidences to support his claim to support his claim of indexation and legal fees. The AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT v. Shree Krishna Trading Co. 253 ITR 645 wherein the court held that the burden is on assessee to establish that he has not concealed the particulars of income. The A.O. held that the assessee has deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and hence explanation 1 of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly applicable and the AO , therefore, levied penalty of Rs. 42,29,88…
