BALRAJ SINGH MANDER,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE PANVEL. , MUMBAI

ITA 1472/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Balraj Singh Mander, the appellant, who appealed against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Panvel, Mumbai. The penalty was imposed following an assessment that added a substantial amount to the assessee's declared income, categorizing it as income from bogus purchases. The initial appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the filing of this appeal. The primary legal contention raised was the jurisdiction of the ITAT Mumbai Bench to hear the case, given that the AO was based in Panvel, under the jurisdiction of Pune ITAT.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 34695 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 250; 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1472/MUM/2024 (A.Y: 2010-11) Balraj Singh Mander Flat No. 702, 7th Floor, Building No. 1, NRI Complex, Seawoods Estate, Sector 54, 56, 58, Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400706. PAN: AIVPM4818P Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Panvel, Mumbai Room No. 304, 3rd Floor, Trifred Tower, Opp. Khanda Colony, New Panvel – 400706. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri. Shekhar Gupta Department Represented by : Shri. Ashok Kumar Ambastha – Sr. AR. Date of conclusion of Hearing : 05.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.10.2024 O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/assessee against the order dated 20.11.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ITA No. 1472/Mum/2024 Balraj Singh Mander; A.Y. 2010-11 Page | 2 “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] for the A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The brief facts as culled out from the order of the lower authorities are that the assessee filed his ITR on 09.11.2010 declaring income of Rs. 45,85,563/- which was processed u/s. 143(1). Later, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act after issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was carried out on 23.02.2015 and income was assessed at Rs. 4,30,86,460/- by making addition of entire amount of Rs. 3,85,00,895/- on account bogus purchases. The penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. The penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was passed on 30.03.2022 and penalty at 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs. 49,16,937/- was imposed. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed by impugned order. Hence, the assessee filed this appeal and has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. “The learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” 4. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR on behalf of the revenue. During the argument, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. ITA No. 1472/Mum/2024 Balraj Singh Mander; A.Y. 2010-11 Page | 3 AO who has passed the order was based at Panvel within jurisdiction of Pune, ITAT bench and therefore made a request to transfer the matter to ITAT Bench, Pune. 5. The Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that since the Ld. AO was not within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Bench, hence, the appeal is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed. 6. We have considered the submissions and perused the material on record. Since Ld. AO who has passed the order dated 23.04.2021 was not within the jurisdiction of Mumbai Bench, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed with the liberty to the assessee to file the same before the ITAT Pune Bench. The file/documents may be handed over to the assessee for presenting the same before the ITAT, Pune Bench. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.10.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARSHI) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Mumbai / Dated 17.10.2024 Karishma J. Pawar, (Stenographer) ITA No. 1472/Mum/2024 Balraj Singh Mander; A.Y. 2010-11 Page | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "