BRIJESH JAIKISHIN RUPANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3061/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5803 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SONI
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3061/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 BRIJESH JAIKISHIN RUPANI, 503, LANDMARK PLATINUM, JUNCTION OF 34 TH ROAD & S.V. ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI [PAN : ADNPR4909B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(1)(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SONI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30-01-2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-02-2019 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-32, MUMBAI, DATED 23-01-2018 FOR THE AY . 2010-11. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30-01-2019. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON THE ADDR ESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36 I.E. THE APPE AL MEMO. ITA NO. 3061/MUM/2018 : 2 : THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT COME BACK UN-SERVED AND THEREF ORE, SERVICE OF NOTICE IS PRESUMED. NONE APPEARED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUES T FOR ADJOURNMENT. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR FOR TH E REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REGARDING LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 2,15,400 /- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT (ACT). IN PAGE NO. 7 OF HIS ORDER, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE AND ACCORDI NGLY ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. LD. CIT (A) AFTER REFERRING TO VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE JUD GMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA VS . CIT 358 ITR 593 (SC), UPHELD THE PENALTY ORDER. HE HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON PAGE NO. 13 OF HIS ORDER THAT A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND BONAFIDES OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN DISPUTE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ITA NO. 3061/MUM/2018 : 3 : CASE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE REJECTE D. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 SD/- (A.K. GARODIA) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI; /DATED : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2019 TNMM ITA NO. 3061/MUM/2018 : 4 : / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ! / THE APPELLANT 2. ' ! / THE RESPONDENT 3. # $ ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI 4. # $ / CIT, MUMBAI 5. '()*+ , #-*+#. , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. )/01 / GUARD FILE # / BY ORDER, ' //TRUE COPY// /# (DY./ASST. REGISTRAR) #-*+#., / ITAT, MUMBAI