ITO WARD - 32(1)(1), MUMBAI V. GENMAL JASWANTLAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

ITA 162/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7927 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R.N.VASANI LD

Judgement Text

1 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “जी” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री महावीर स िंह, उपाध्यक्ष एवुं माननीय श्री मनोज कु मार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील िं./ I.T .A. No. 162/ Mum /2021 (धििाारण वर्ा / Ass essm ent Yea r: 2010-11 ITO Ward – 32(1)(1), R. No. 703, Kautilya Bhavan BKC, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 बिाम/ Vs. Genmal Jasw antlal Ch oud har y F. No. 101, Pr i ya P rabha Bld g Daulat Na gar, Bor i va li (Eas t) Mum bai-400 066 स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./PAN/GIR No. ADBP C-4446-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) : (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue by : Shri Hoshang Boman Irani-Ld. Sr.DR Assessee by : Shri R.N.Vasani – Ld. AR ुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Heari ng : 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of P ro nou nc ement : 25/11/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 31/01/2020 which has deleted penalty of Rs.4.52 Lacs as levied by learned Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 25/04/2018. It could be seen that penalty was levied against estimated additions of 12.5% on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2 2. Though the registry has noted a delay of 319 days in the appeal however, upon perusal of authorisation memo, it could be seen that the last date for filing of the appeal was 04/04/2020 and the appeal has actually been filed on 18/02/2021. This period was marred by corona pandemic in the entire country and therefore, the same was to be excluded for the purpose of limitation. The Ld. AR also did not object to condonation of delay. Keeping in view the same, the appeal is found to be in order and accordingly, we proceed with adjudication of the same on merits. 3. The perusal of impugned order would show that the penalty has been deleted by Ld. CIT(A), inter-alia, on the ground that the estimated adhoc additions do not call for levy of penalty as per the decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Harigopal Singh V/s CIT (258 ITR 85). Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. In our considered opinion, the penalty is not sustainable since the additions are mere estimated additions of unproved purchases and therefore, no case of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income could be made out against the assessee. Our aforesaid view is duly supported by the order of Hon’ble Chhattisgarh High Court in CIT V/s Vijay Kumar Jain (325 ITR 378; 19/04/2010) as well as the cited decision of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as relied upon by learned first appellate authority. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 5. Resultantly, the appeal stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 25 th November, 2021. Sd/- Sd/- (Mahavir Singh) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) उपाध्यक्ष / Vice President लेखा दस्य / Accountant Member 3 मुिंबई Mumbai; सदनािंक Dated : 25/11/2021 Sr.PS, Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रधिधलधपअग्रेधर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT– concerned 5. सवभागीयप्रसतसनसध, आयकरअपीलीयअसधकरण, मुिंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशाि सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पुंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, मुिंबई / ITAT, Mumbai.