Rajesh D. Dedhia, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 23, Mumbai
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed
ITA 2711/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Am & Shri G. Manjunatha, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2711/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Rajesh D. Dedhia बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-23, Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, C-308, Shreenath Darshan, Vs. Off, 30 Tp. Road, Borivali Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. (W), Mumbai-400092 Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abhpd1165B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajat Mittal ( Dr) Assessee By: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 09.02.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2010- 11 In Which The Penalty Levied By The Ao Has Been Confirmed. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1. The Commissioner (Appeals) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 27I(L)(C) Of Rs.20,78,458/- Invoking Explanation-5 A To Section 271(1) (C) Of The It. Act 1961, 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) Failed To Appreciate That The Income Of Rs,71,53F28Q/- Is Added To The Income Of (He Assessee On Estimation Of Gross Profile At 26.40% Of The Goods Sold
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal ( DR)
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 27I
…e assessee, as claimed by Ld. AR and considering the decision of the Jodhpur Bench in Devidas Sukhani Vs. DCIT 158 TTJ 42 and Nagpur Bench in DCIT Vs. Purti Sakhani Vs. DCIT 158 TTJ 12, Punen Bench in Smt. Pramila D. Asthekar Vs. ITO (154 TTJ 46) (Pune Trib.) 61 SOT 113 Pune, we find merit in the argument of the assessee and allow the appeal of the assessee on the ground that no addition was made in order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04, ITA. No.2711/M/15 A.Y.2010-11 2005-06 and 2006-07. The Ld. AO is directed to delete the penalty.” 6. In the case of Pr. CIT Vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 taxma…
