ACIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI V. CHANDRAIAH BALANNA KALAL, MUMBAI

MA 140/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue seeking recall of an order passed by the ITAT in a previous appeal concerning the imposition of a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The penalty of Rs. 59,08,492 was initially imposed for alleged concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee, Chandraiah Balanna Kalal, for the assessment year 2012-13. The ITAT had previously quashed this penalty, leading to the Revenue's application for recall. However, the application was dismissed due to the delay in filing, which the ITAT could not condone.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714522 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BHAGIRATH RAMAWAT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Depreciation; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 271(1)(c); 43B

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA.A.No.140/Mum/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.1285/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ACIT 4(1)(1), Mumbai Room No. 642, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 vs Chandraiah Balanna Kalal Plot No. 7 D-1, Mandar CHS Ltd, RSC 21, Gorai-1, Borivali (West), Maharashtra-400 092 PAN : AABPK8755H APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Respondent by : Shri Bhagirath Ramawat (SR DR) Date of hearing : 25/07/2025 Date of pronouncement : 06/08/2025 O R D E R Per Anikesh Banerjee (JM): This miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue seeks recall of the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA No.1285/Mum/2024 dated 18/06/2024, for the following reasons:- “1. The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench \"C\", Mumbai Passed an order dated 18/06/2024 in ITA No. 1285/Mum/2024 filed by the Assessee for AY 2012-13. A Copy of the order is enclosed hereto marked as Exhibit \"A\". Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA 140/Mum /2025 Mr. Chandraiah Balanna Kalal 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench \"C\", Mumbal, the present Miscellaneous Application is filed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The Hon'ble ITAT In its order, has noted that the AO has not specified the nature of concealment i.e. as to whether the penalty proceeding is Initiated \"for concealing the particulars of Income\" or \"for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\" in view of this the ITAT quashed the penalty order passed by the AD u/s 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.59,08,492/. The Hon'ble ITAT has falled to note that the while passing the assessment order the Penalty proceedings order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, was initiated both \"for concealing the particulars of income\" as well as \"for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income\", thus this issue needs to be reviewed. 4. The facts of the issue of imposing penalty of Rs. 59,08,492/- are briefly enumerated as under 4.1 in the case of the assessee reture of income declaring total income at Rs.10,89,951/- was filed on 30/09/2012. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) as per order dated30/03/2015 assessing the total income at Rs.2,18,99,900/-after making the following additions: Sr.No. Disallowance / additionmade (Rupees) 1 Deemed rent 4,62,000 2 Bogus purchase 19,22,895 3 Depreciation on car – Personal use 1,49,082 4 AIR difference in receipts 31,90,865 5 Disallowance u/s 43B 1,50,78,106 On appeal, the Id.CIT(A) as per appellate order dated 30/01/2017 restricted the disallowance made on account of bogus purchase to Rs.2,40,362/- [i.e. 12.5% against 100% Rs,19,22,895/- made by AO) while disallowance made on account of depreciation on motor-car of Rs. 1,49,082/- was deleted. Accordingly, part relief of Rs.18,31,615/- was granted by the CIT(A) to the assessee 4.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT. During the pendency of the assessee's appeal before the ITAT, the based on decision of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA 140/Mum /2025 Mr. Chandraiah Balanna Kalal appellate order of the CIT(A), the AO passed order u/s 271(1)(c) on 12/03/2018 Imposing penalty of Rs.59,08,492/-. The appeal of the assessee impugning the order imposing penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was dismissed by the CIT(A). 4.3 The present order of the ITAT is on appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) upholding the order of the AD dated 12/03/2018 imposing the penalty of Rs.59,08,492/-u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the appeal the assessee raised the following grounds of appeal. Ground-1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. A.O. erred in issuing the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) since the same does not mention the satisfaction of the reasons for initiation of the penalty proceeding and hence the same needs to be quashed. Ground -2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in not mentioning whether the notice has been Issued towards \"Concealment of income\" or \"for furnishing of inaccurate particulars\", thus, the above notice itself is invalid and bad in law further in assessment order also the initiation has been made for both the limbs. Ground -3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) NFAC erred in confirming the penalty order passed by Id assessing officer without appreciating that the Id. Assessing officer vide order giving effect to the IT AT order allowed the disallowances and deleted the additions. Ground 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) NFAC erred in imposing penalty without appreciating that the addition has been made on assumption basis which itself will not attract penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). 5. The Hon'ble ITAT in the impugned order dated 19/03/2019 has quashed the penalty order passed by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) imposing penalty of Rs.59,08,492/- without noting the fact that the AO while passing the assessment order the Penalty proceedings order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, was initiated both \"for concealing the particulars of income\" as well as \"for furnishing Inaccurate particulars of income\". Therefore the instant appeal may be reinstated to protect the interests of revenue.” Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA 140/Mum /2025 Mr. Chandraiah Balanna Kalal 2. None appeared on behalf of the assesse despite service of notice. However, we find that miscellaneous application could be decided even without the presence of the assessee. Therefore, the miscellaneous application was proceeded exparte qua for assessee and is disposed of after hearing the Ld. DR and on perusal of materials on record. 3. The miscellaneous application is filed with a delay of 149 days. We have considered the submissions of the revenue and we find that as per provisions of section 254(2), the miscellaneous application should be disposed of within six months. So, the ITAT has no power to condone the delay related to filing of miscellaneous applications. Accordingly, the condonation of delay of 146 days sought for, is rejected. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06th day of August 2025. Sd/- sd/- (GIRISH AGRAWAL) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, िदनांक/Dated: 06/08/2025 Pavanan Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथ /The Appellant , 2. ितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु\u0014 CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., मुबंई/DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar), ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "