AMISH ANANTRAI MODI ,MUMBAI V. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4172/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assessee, Amish Anantrai Modi, against the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. The penalty of INR 4,29,570 was initially levied by the Assessing Officer and was upheld by the CIT(A). The Assessee contended that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty without considering the submissions made, and argued that the additions made were on an estimate basis, which should not amount to concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately addressed the Assessee's submissions and thus remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314690 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASSESSEE
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4172/MUM/2024 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Amish Anantrai Modi B/1701, Shiv Parvati Tower, Vasant Complex, Near Shiv Temple, Kandivali West, Mumbai - 400067, Maharashtra. [PAN:AFXPM2914F] …………. Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai Pratishtha Bhawan, 8th Floor, Annex Building, New Marines Lines, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra. Vs …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Shri Ravikant Pathak Shri Ram Krishn Kedia Shri Kiran Unavekar Date Conclusion of hearing Pronouncement of order : : 07.03.2025 07.05.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 11/07/2024, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 48 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Penalty Order, dated 15/01/2024, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts of the case and correct construction of law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty of Rs.4,29,570 under Section ITA No.4172/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 2 271(1)(c) levied by the assessing officer. While confirming the penalty, learned CIT(A) completely ignored the submissions made before him. 2. On the facts of the case and correct construction of law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) which was levied by the ITAT. Appellant submits that since addition has been made/confirmed on estimate basis, this does not amount to concealment or submission of inaccurate particulars.” 3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing detailed arguments were advanced on behalf of the both the sides. However, on the perusal of the Penalty Order, dated 15/01/2024, we find that the Assessing Officer had levied penalty of INR.4,29,570/- on the Assessee under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-2016 observing that despite having been granted sufficient opportunity during the penalty proceedings the Assessee had failed to make any submissions. Being aggrieved the Assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) and filled written submissions, dated 11/03/2024, whereby the Assessee had, inter alia, claimed that penalty had been levied in respect of duplicate additions made in the hands of the Assessee. We note that the Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide Order, dated 11/07/2024. Now the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. By way of Ground No.1 raised in the present appeal, it has been contended on behalf of the Assessee that the Learned CIT(A) had decided the appeal by completely ignoring the submissions made by the Assessee. On perusal of order impugned passed by the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has reproduced the submissions made by the Assessee in Paragraph 5.1 of the order impugned. However, the same have not been dealt with while deciding the appeal. The CIT(A) has confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing that despite having been granted ample opportunity during the penalty proceedings the Assessee had not filed any reply. Thus, the factual as well as legal submission made on behalf of the Assessee during the course of hearing before the Tribunal have neither been ITA No.4172/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 3 factually verified from the assessment record nor have been adjudicated upon by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). Accordingly, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we set aside the order, dated 11/07/2024, passed by the CIT(A) with the directions to decide grounds raised by the Assessee in appeal before the CIT(A) afresh after taking into consideration the submission made by the Assessee. Since we have set aside the order, dated 11/07/2024, passed by the CIT(A), all the rights and contentions of the Assessee are left open. The Assessee is directed to be vigilant and track the appellate proceedings through Income Tax Business Application Portal. The Assessee is also directed to forthwith file details/documents/submission in support of its claims/contentions before the CIT(A). It is clarified that the CIT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. However, in case the Assessee fails to enter appearance and/or fails to file details/documents/submission in response to notice of hearing issued by the CIT(A), the Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to decide the issues on merits on the basis of material on record. In terms of aforesaid, Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes while Ground No.2 raised by the Assessee is dismissed as having been rendered infructuous at this stage. 4. In result, in terms of paragraph 3 above, the appeal preferred by the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 07.05.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (Om Prakash Kant) Accountant Member (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांक Dated :07.05.2025 Milan,LDC ITA No.4172/Mum/2024 Assessment Year 2015-2016 4 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ The CIT 4. Ůधान आयकर आयुƅ / Pr.CIT 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध ,आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, सȑािपत Ůित //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai "