← All Phrases

“Section 142(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 142Section 142(1)15,051 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 142(1) is Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji (167 ITR 471), cited in 3,926 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 142(1)

Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji
167 ITR 471 · 1987 · Supreme Court
3,926
citing judgments

Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.

Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT
243 ITR 83 · 2000 · Supreme Court
2,943
citing judgments

For revision under Section 263, the Assessing Officer's order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue; if either condition is not met, the revisionary jurisdiction cannot be invoked. An order is not erroneous merely because the Assessing Officer did not record the details of enquiries conducted, provided due enquiries were made.

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.
38 ITD 320 · 1991 · ITAT
2,267
citing judgments

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT
223 ITR 480 · 1997 · High Court
2,040
citing judgments

A court or tribunal is not bound to answer a reference or adjudicate an appeal on its merits if the party at whose instance the proceeding is made fails to appear at the hearing or take necessary steps for its proper conduct.

Sumati Dayal v. CIT
214 ITR 801 · 1995 · Supreme Court
1,967
citing judgments

The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.

CIT v. Kelvinator of India Ltd.
320 ITR 561 · 2010 · Supreme Court
1,673
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on a mere change of opinion. Reassessment is permissible only when there is fresh tangible material leading to the belief of income escapement, not merely a review of existing facts.

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another
118 ITR 461 · 1997 · Supreme Court
1,656
citing judgments

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

CIT v. Durga Prasad More
82 ITR 540 · 1971 · Supreme Court
1,579
citing judgments

Tax authorities must judge evidence using the test of human probabilities and consider the apparent as real until there are reasons to believe it is not. They can rely on circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities to determine the genuineness of transactions.

Judgments citing Section 142(1)

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1385/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 were in progress. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA on 19 February 2020 for furnishing the details and requesting compliance on or before 5 March ... assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has inadvertently lost sight of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19 February 2020 and therefore, there was a lapse. However, assessee submitted that as this was a search matter and several cases

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1384/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 were in progress. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA on 19 February 2020 for furnishing the details and requesting compliance on or before 5 March ... assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has inadvertently lost sight of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19 February 2020 and therefore, there was a lapse. However, assessee submitted that as this was a search matter and several cases

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1383/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 were in progress. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA on 19 February 2020 for furnishing the details and requesting compliance on or before 5 March ... assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has inadvertently lost sight of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19 February 2020 and therefore, there was a lapse. However, assessee submitted that as this was a search matter and several cases

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1382/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 were in progress. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA on 19 February 2020 for furnishing the details and requesting compliance on or before 5 March ... assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has inadvertently lost sight of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19 February 2020 and therefore, there was a lapse. However, assessee submitted that as this was a search matter and several cases

Khyalilal Mohanlal Tater, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the six appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 1381/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Charmi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 274

assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2013-14 to A.Y. 2018-19 were in progress. The learned Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to the assessee through ITBA on 19 February 2020 for furnishing the details and requesting compliance on or before 5 March ... assessee preferred the appeal before the learned CIT (A) and submitted that assessee has inadvertently lost sight of the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 19 February 2020 and therefore, there was a lapse. However, assessee submitted that as this was a search matter and several cases

M/S. Shri Mahishasuramardini Urban Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Haveri vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-1, Haveri

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 566/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Sri.Vishal S Rao, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Ganesh R.Ghale, Standing Counsel
Section 234ASection 234BSection 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

arise as to whether belated returns filed beyond the period stipulated under section 139(1) or section 139(4) as well as following sections 142(1) and 148 proceedings could be 16 ITA No.566/Bang/2022. Sri Mahishasuramanrdini Urban Co-op Cr.So.Ltd. considered for exemption. If those returns are eligible ... also stand effectuated as a claim duly made as part of the returns so filed, for due consideration. 21. When a notice under section 142(1) is issued, the person may furnish the return and while doing so, could also make claim for deduction referable to section 80P. Not much

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Sri C Gangadhara Murthy, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2400/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuthe Dy. Commissioner Of Vs Shri C. Gangadhara Murthy Income-Tax, No. 322, 3Rd A Corss, 2Nd Block Circle - 6(2)(1) 3Rd Stage, Basaveshwaranagar Bangalore . Bangalore 560079. Pan – Agipg 2668 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 2

issued under Section 148 of the Act the AO issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act dated 11.03.2014 and notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was also issued calling for details. The case was not selected for scrutiny under Section ... issued to the assessee seeking the assessee to 4 personally appear on 24.04.2014 but the assessee did not appear and again notice under Section 142(1) was issued to the assessee giving last opportunity for substantiating his case, but the assessee did not appear. Accordingly the AO completed the assessment

Abhushan Jewellerys (India ) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) I.T.A. No. 793/Mum/2022 (A.Y

Asian Star Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai-1, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 710/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80I

after due application of mind. In support of this submission, the Learned AR invited our attention to the notice issued by the under section 142(1) of the Act during the course of assessment proceedings, wherein, the AO had called for various details, which, inter alia, included the 3 Asian

Rediffusion Brand Solutions P Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT -8, Mumbai

ITA 920/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthy: A.Y : 2015-16 Rediffusion Brand Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-8, Mumbai. (Respondent) 1801, A Wing, Lotus Corporate Park, Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400 063. Pan : Aaacr5303G (Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kirtane & Mehul Jain
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263

Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessment proceedings. The assessee had given all the relevant details in response to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer verified all the details furnished by assessee in support of the submissions. The ld. Counsel referred to notice dated ... issued under Section 142(1) of the Act (page 9 of the Paper Book), and the reply to the notice dated 28.06.2017 (page 10 of the Paper Book). The ld. Counsel pointed that secondly, a perusal of notice issued under Section 263 of the Act and the reasons for invoking

L & T Seawoods Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 17/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 17/मुं/2019 (िन.व. 2014-15) L & T Seawoods Ltd. 2Nd Floor, L & T House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Aabcl4524C ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito-1(2)(2), 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Nitesh Joshi, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 17/06/2022 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/08/2022 आदेश/ Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 02.11.2018 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Findings Of Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made In Respect Of :

For Appellant: Sh. Nitesh Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 37

page no. 67 to 69 of the Paper Book (PB). The ld. AR further referred to the reply to questionnaire issued under section 142(1) of the Act, during the course of assessment proceedings for AY 2013-14. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee had furnished details of Market

Mukesh C Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4640/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhmukesh C. Parikh Vs. Ito-24(2)(2) Kamla Vihar, Wing ‘D’ Piramal Chambers, 5Th Floor, Kamla Vihar Lalbaug, Parel, Abcd Bldg, Kamla Vihar Mumbai – 400 012 Garden, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400 067 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aabpp9110B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri M.N. ShahFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 80C

ITA No.4640/Mum/2018 A.Y.2010-11 1 Mukesh C. Shah Vs. ITO-24(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH

Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Company Ltd, Mumabi vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1045/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2017-18
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Manipal Cigna Health Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1044/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘E‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1207/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that penalty under section. 271(1)(b) of the Act for similar reasons were ... dated 20/02/2021 levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271 (1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In the impugned assessment years, non- appearance/non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act has been attributed

Hardik Shah, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) -50, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee in ITA No

ITA 1206/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice- & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1206/मुं/2022 ("न.व .2013-14)

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(b) of the Act levying penalty of Rs.10,000/- for non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that penalty under section. 271(1)(b) of the Act for similar reasons were ... dated 20/02/2021 levied penalty of Rs.10,000/- under section 271 (1)(b) of the Act for non-compliance of the notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. In the impugned assessment years, non- appearance/non-compliance of notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act has been attributed

The Mysore Co-Op. Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-27, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 730/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhthe Mysore Co-Op Vs. Pr.Cit-27, Housing Society Ltd, Room No -401, 4 Th Gateno2, Mysore Colony, Floor, Tower-6, Vashi Near Rcf Factory, Railway Station Anik,Off Majul Road, Commercial Complex, Chembur, Vashi,Navi Mumbai- Mumbai-400074 400073. Pan/Gir No. : Aacft7837N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.M.Subramanian.& Ms.Varsha Nanwani.Ar Respondent By : Mr. Ajay. Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pr.Cit), Mumbai Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Dated 17.03.2021. Mysore Co-Op Housing Society Ltd. Mumbai. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assesse Is A Cooperative Housing Society & Derives Income House Property & Interest From Bank & Provides Credit Facilities To Its Members. The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The A.Y 2015-16 Electronically On 26.10.2015 Disclosing A Total Income Of Rs.43,08,320/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80P(2)(D) Of The Act Of Rs.85,80,391/-In Respect Of Interest Income Received On Deposits With Co-Op Banks. The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. Subsequently The Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Through Cass For Verification Of (I)Income From Heads Of Income Other Than Business/Profession Mismatch(Ii)Sales Turnover Mismatch & (Iii) Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Issued Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With The Questionnaire. In Compliance, The Ld.Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time, Produced The Books Of Accounts & Submitted The Relevant Details & Documents & The Case Was Discussed.

For Appellant: Mr.M.Subramanian.&For Respondent: Mr. Ajay. CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT

Pranay Godha, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 5(2), Mumbai

In the result we are in agreement with a finding of Ld

ITA 1185/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mani Jain/Prateek JainFor Respondent: Sh. Vinay Sinha, CIT-DR
Section 28

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

DCIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Majni Karamshi Patel, Mumbai

In the result, the cross objections of the assessee and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6128/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal, Accountat Member Dcit, Cc-7(3) Vs. Shri Manji Karamshi Room No. 655, Patel Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 1, Patel M.K.Road, Bhavan-29, Vijaywadi, Mumbai.-400020. Dr. Nagindas N Shah Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent Co No. 45/Mum/2021 (A.Y: 2014-15) Shri Manji Karamshi Vs. Dcit, Cc-7(3) Patel Room No. 655, Aayakar Office No. 1, Patel Bhavan, Bhuvan-29, Vijaywadi, M.K .Road, Dr. Nagindas N Shah Mumbai-400002. Lane Chira Bazar, Mumbai – 400002. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpp0130D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Rushab Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri .T .Shankar.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTAT

Naresh Mehta, Mumbai vs. Comm of Income Tax(A), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1199/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Haresh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 246ASection 271(1)(b)Section 273B

course of assessment proceedings under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act for the aforesaid assessment years, the Assessing Officer had issued notice under Section 142(1) on 17.12.2020 asking for various details from the assessee. The notice was served electronically and according to the Assessing Officer, explain the case. While ... 1)(b) and hereby levy a penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b) for failing in complying with notice(s) issued under section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. issue. Demand notice and Challan accordingly.” 3. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the penalty simply stating that