SHRI SUDHAKAR M. SHETTY, MUMBAI V. DCIT, CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1712/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5085 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: APARNA SHIVA KUMAR
• Section: 132; 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1712/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty 402, Sagar Avenue S.V. Road, Andheri (W) Mumbai PAN: ALPPS0603R v. DCIT – Central Circle – 4(2) Room No. 1918 Air India Building Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Aparna Shivakumar Department by : Shri S.N.Kabra Date of Hearing : 28.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 52, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 02.09.2016 for the A.Y.2012-13. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed his return of income on 25.09.2013 declaring total income of ₹.9,78,960/-, search action u/s. 132 2 ITA NO. 1712/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty of the Act was conducted by DDIT (Investigation), Unit-IV-4, Mumbai on 22.09.2011 at the business premises of the assessee who is the key person of Sahana Group. The assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act in this case was completed on 24.03.2014 determining the total income at ₹.2,20,79,050/-. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹.13 lakhs on account of cash balance found during the course of search and ₹.14,99,084/- on account of jewellery found during the course of the search. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAA of the Act were initiated and subsequently penalty was levied u/s. 271AAA to the extent of ₹.2,79,910/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty. 3. Aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us and at the time of hearing it is brought to our notice that the corresponding quantum addition of ₹.27,99,084/- made u/s. 69A of the Act was subsequently deleted by the Coordinate Bench vide M.A. order 617/Mum/2018 dated 20.11.2018 thereby no pending issue of any undisclosed income of the assessee. Therefore Ld. AR prayed that the penalty levied deserves to be deleted. 4. On the other hand, Ld.DR fairly accepted that in Miscellaneous Application, the ITAT had deleted the quantum addition. 3 ITA NO. 1712/MUM/2020 (A.Y: 2012-13) Shri Sudhakar M. Shetty 5. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, since the quantum addition is already deleted by the Coordinate Bench, we do not find any reason to sustain the penalty on the above said addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 06.04.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 06.04.2022 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum