BHAVESH PRAVINCHANDRA SHETH,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 12(2), MUMBAI
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed
ITA 816/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12
Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Bhaveshpravinchandrasheth Assistant Commissioner Of Sheth House, Gr. Floor, Vs. Income Tax- 12(2), Sandhurst Bridge, Room No. 123A, Opera House, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400007 Maharashi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400020 Pan No. Aavps0801N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Biren Gubhawala, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, Dr Last Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019
For Appellant: Mr. Biren Gubhawala, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)
u/s 271(1)(c), what is required to be examined is the record which the officer imposing penalty had before him and if that record can sustain the finding that there has been concealment, that would be sufficient to sustain penalty.
In CIT v. Atual Mohan Bindal [2009] 183 Taxman 444 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed at para
