← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(c)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)8,984 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(c)

Smt.Adithyapan Amutha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 74/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी महावीर "संह, उपा"य

Nxp India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 264/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V S Chakrapani, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 92C

appearing in Form 26AS v. Ground 14 — Non allowance of deduction of education cess vi. Ground 15 — Initiation of Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vii. Ground 16 — Levy of interest under section 234B of the Act 6. Ground No. 1 and 2 being general does

Levi Strauss (India) Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, ground 10(c) is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Smt.Shreya Loyalka, CAFor Respondent: Sri.Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 288ASection 37Section 92C

specified under section 115JB of the Act; and 11. The learned AO has erred in law and in facts in initiating penalty under section 271(1 )(c) of the Act.” 5. The assessee has also filed additional grounds, which read as follows:- “1. The learned AO / Transfer Pricing Officer

Manav Gems, Mumbai vs. Asstt Comm of Income Tax Circle 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1882/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s

Manav Gems, Mumbau vs. Circle 19(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1881/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2008-09
Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘F ‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT KAVITA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & M/s

ACIT 28 (2), Mumbai vs. Milind V. Deshmukh, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6938/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6938/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Milind V. Deshmukh Acit- 28(2), Plot No. R-478, Ttc Room No.307, 3Rd Floor, बिधम/ Industrial Area, Midc Rabale, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Vs. Navi Mumbai- 400 701 Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aewpd2450D (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Aditya Ramchandran, Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 30.08.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26, Mumbai In Relation To Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2009- 2010. The Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Ramchandran
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकरअपीलसं

M/S Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 125/BANG/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

have appreciated that the Show Cause Notice is defective in that it did not specify the reason for initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. M/s. Jaico Automobile Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 2 of 10 Rs.9,62,91,447/- 2. The learned ... Rs.9,62,91,447/- 4. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for the relevant assessment year is opposed to law and to the principles of natural justice and accordingly he ought not to have confirmed the levy

M/S. Arshiya Rail Infrastucture Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT - CC-6(4), Mumbai

In the result appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 574/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed a/wFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain
Section 115Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 153C

facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer erred in initiating the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act made by learned AO shall be dropped.” 3. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is a private

DCIT Central Circle(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 439/MUM/2022[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Cc-2(1) Vs. Shri Kumar Rasiklal Old Cgo Bldg, 804, Mehta, 8Th Floor, Mk Road, 602-603, Prasad Mumbai – 400020. Chambers,Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 87/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita 439/Mum/2022) (A.Y: 2006-07) Shri Kumar Rasikal Vs. Dcit, Cc-2(1) Mehta, Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 8Th 602-603, Prasad Floor, Mk Road, Chambers,Operahouse, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai - 400004 Pan/Gir No. Aaopm3805D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri .Harsh Kapadia.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

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

Scorditte Stainless India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the Appellant are allowed

ITA 2002/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the order, dated 28.09.2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of INR 37,25,254/-. ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1 ... respect of alleged hawala/non-genuine purchases.” 3. Appellant has challenged the levy of penalty of INR 37,25,254/- by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act which has been confirmed by the CIT(A) leading to the filing of the present appeal. ITA. No.2002/Mum/2021 Assessment Year

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP(Sucessor of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2) (1)(International Taxation)-2(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1783/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1783/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit Cir. -6(2)(1), Deloitte Touche R. No. 504, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Tohmatsu India Llp Bhavan, M. K. Road, One International Centre, बिधम/ Mumbai-400 020 Tower 3, 32Nd Floor, Vs. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (West), Maharashtra-400013, स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aalfd7157J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Shri Ketan Ved, Ld. Ar अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 07.09.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 07.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 10.06.2022, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Relation To Penalty Proceeding U/S 271(1)(C) For Ay 2014-15. 2

For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM, & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, AM आयकरअपीलसं

Ksb Care Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer (Exem) 1 (4), Mumbai

ITA 1760/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhksb Care Charitable Vs. Ito (Exm)- 1(4) Trust Piramal Chambers, C/O Ksb Ltd Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbaipune Road, Mumbai-400012. Pimpri, Pune-411018. Pan/Gir No. : Aabtk4311M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Biren Gabhawala.Ar Respondent By : Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.Dr Date Of Hearing 30.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Biren Gabhawala.ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Anand Ojha.DR
Section 11(1)Section 11(2)Section 11(2)(C)Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

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

Mr. G R Chandrashekar Naidu, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 677/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore06 Sept 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Suman Gala Ranga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.K.R.Narayanan, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Singh and Co. is also not very important because that was in relation to the assessment year 1970-71 when Explanation 4 to Section 271 (1) ((c) was not in existence. The view of this Court in Horprasods case (supra) Leads to the irresistible conclusion that income also includes Losses ... income assessed. " 10. A combined reading of the Committee's ecommendations and the Circular makes the position clear that Explanation 4(a) to Section 271 (1) (c) intended to levy the penalty not only in a case where after addition of concealed income, a loss returned, after assessment becomes positive

Mr. Sajjanraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-21(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no-4 is also allowed with a direction to the A

ITA 56/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalmr. Sajjanraj Mehta C/O. M. Mehta & Co., Shop No. 19, Palamsojal Building, Dadar (W), Mumbai-400028. Pan: Aabpm9430B ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-21(3)(2) Room No. 206, 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400012. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ajay Singh Respondent By : Sh. Pramod Nikalje Date Of Hearing : 14/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Cit(A)’] Dated 11.02.2020 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay SinghFor Respondent: Sh. Pramod Nikalje
Section 234BSection 234DSection 244ASection 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(vii)

case and law applicable thereto, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the AO in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. The Appellant craves your Honour's leave to add, NA alter or amend any grounds of appeal at the time

ITO WD-1, Palghar vs. Shri Jaydeep Vasant Raut, Palghar

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2086/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rishi PatelFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

alleged bogus purchase. Meanwhile, the penalty order dated 16/03/2020, was passed by the Shri Jaydeep Vasant Raut ITA No.2086/Mum./2021 Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, wherein penalty of Rs.4,97,535, was levied on the basis that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income ... hearing, at the outset, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned A.R”) submitted that the amount of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is only Rs.4,97,535, and thus, the tax effect in Revenue’s appeal is below the revised monetary limit

Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7548/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Mrs. Shailaja G Tandel Ito Ward-4 401, Chandan Residency Panvel Raigad Plot No.33, Sector 44A, Vs. Nerul West, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai-400 706 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Acppt6011K Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ajay Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2022

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Singh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54F

Pune, dated 4th October, 2019 for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein penalty levied by ITO, Ward-4, (the learned Assessing Officer) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 24th March, 2017 of ₹26,57,402/-, is confirmed. 02. Briefly stated facts show that return ... gain and assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 54F of the Act. 04. Meanwhile, the learned Assessing Officer passed an order under Section 271 (1) ( c) of the Act, as nobody attended before him, levying penalty of ₹26,57,402/- holding that assessee has concealed income from short term

Iftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5275/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyaliftekhar Mukhtar Siddiqui, Room No. 60, Prem Nagar, Behind Lucky Hotel, Sion Agra Road, Sion, Mumbai-400022 Pan: Bgsps0603N ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-26(1)(5), C-1 Building, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Kavita Kaushik Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271FSection 274Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN

Vijay Grihnirman P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 15 & 16, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3279/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Us.

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of learned CIT(A) in confirming the penalty in both the years under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 2. The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction. In A.Y. 2006-07, the Assessing Officer made addition ... lakhs as undisclosed income from sale of row house. The Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs. 3,36,600/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 3. In A.Y. 2007-08, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.30 lakhs relating to loan received by the assessee

Rare Enterprises, Mumbai vs. PCIT (Central), Mumbai 4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 653/MUM/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Shri S. C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri P. R. Mane (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(iii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM

Marvel Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1486/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1486/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Marvel Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-2(2)(2) 20 Podar Chambers, Sa Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Brelvi Road, Bombay, Mumbai. Mumbai-400023. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm3243J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Haridas Bhat Revenue By: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/09/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: By Preferring This Appeal, The Assessee/Appellant Has Challenged The Impugned Action Of The Ld. Cit(A)/ Nfac, Delhi Passed On 28Th March 2022. It Was Brought To Our Notice That The Cit(A) Has Passed An Ex-Parte Order Without Considering The Merits Of The Action Of Ao By Observing As Follows: “5. During The Course Of Appellate Proceedings, Notice For Hearing Was Issued To Appellant On 09.08.2019, 18.10.2019, 22.12.2021 & 03.03.2022. All These Notices Were Issued Through Itba System Via E- Mail Id Provided In The Itba Portal. In Response, Appellant Failed To File Any Submission In Support Of The Grounds Raised By Him Nor Did Appellant Seek For Any Adjournment. 6. It Is Clear From The Above That Appellant Has Been Granted Opportunities To Represent Its Case In The Appellate Proceedings But Has Failed To Make Any Submissions In Support Of The Grounds Of Appeal Filed By Appellant. Appellant Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VP AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM