IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.3216/M/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Shri Tushar Mahendra Parekh,
901, Nellai Heights,
ST Road, Swastik Park,
Chembur,
Mumbai
Maharashtra-400 071
PAN: AABPP4751A
Vs.
Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals),
National Faceless Appeal
Center (NFAC),
Income Tax Department,
Delhi
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Present for:
Assessee by : Shri Bhavesh Prafulbhai Shah, CA
Revenue by : Shri P.D. Chougule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. DR.
Date of Hearing : 07 . 08 .2024
Date of Pronouncement : 19 . 08 .2024
O R D E R
Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order
dated 16.04.2024, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless
Appeal Center (NFAC)/ Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in
short Ld. Commissioner) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act,
1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2013-14.
2. Considering the delay of three days in filing of the instant appeal,
which is neither intentional nor malafide but occurred due to illness of
the Assessee, the same is condoned.
3. Coming to the merits of the case, we observe from the penalty
order that the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 11.03.2016 u/s
143 of the Act determined the total income of the Assessee at
ITA No.3216/M/2024
Shri Tushar Mahendra Parekh
2
Rs.1,51,59,015/- as against the returned income of Rs.6,31,820/- and
made the additions totaling to Rs.1,35,10,887/- on account of
disallowances u/s 41(i) and 41(a)(ia) of the Act and unexplained cash
credit and corpus fund respectively to the tune of Rs.7,51,308/-,
Rs.1,32,875/-, Rs.1,30,85,423/- and Rs.2,92,589/-.
4. The AO though not initiated the penalty proceedings qua
disallowance to the tune of Rs.7,51,308/- u/s 41 of the Act, however,
initiated the penalty proceedings qua rest of the additions u/s
271(1)(C) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing of
inaccurate particular of income.
5. The Assessee, being aggrieved with the assessment order and
additions made by the AO, has preferred first quantum appeal before
the Ld. CIT-28, Mumbai, who vide order dated 30.03.2017 dismissed
the appeal of the Assessee.
6. Thereafter, on receipt of Ld. CIT(A)’s order, the AO further by
issuing a show cause notice on 16.01.2019 show caused the Assessee,
“as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(1) of the Act should not be levied for
concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income”.
7. The Assessee in response to the show cause, vide
letter/submission dated 15.01.2019 filed on 21.01.2019 Tapal
explained the facts of the case qua penalty proceedings. The
submission filed by the Assessee has been considered by the AO,
however, not found acceptable and ultimately vide penalty order dated
01.03.2019 levied the penalty of Rs.41,33,806/- being 100% of the
tax sought to be evaded for concealment of income to the tune of
Rs.1,33,78,012/- (Rs.1,30,85,423/- on account of unexplained cash
credits and Rs.2,92,589/- on account of corpus fund).
ITA No.3216/M/2024
Shri Tushar Mahendra Parekh
3
8. Subsequently the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide
order dated 28.08.2019 in quantum appeal i.e. ITA No.3671 &
3672/M/2018 has remanded the issues pertaining to the additions
made on account of unexplained cash credit to the tune of
Rs.1,30,85,423/-, however, affirmed the addition to the extent of
Rs.2,92,589/- on account of capital receipt and therefore the Assessee
has claimed that as substantive additions are not in existence because
of the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench of the
Tribunal, hence the penalty levied is un-sustainable.
8. On the contrary, Ld. D.R. though the supported the impugned
order, however not refuted the aforesaid facts.
9. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on
record. Admittedly, the penalty to the tune of Rs.41,33,806/- was
levied being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded on account of
unexplained cash credit of Rs.1,30,85,423/- and corpus fund of
Rs.2,92,589/- and the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide order
dated 20.08.2019 has already remanded the issue qua unexplained
cash credit of Rs.1,30,85,423/- the addition which is substantive in
nature and on the basis of which, as well as the addition of
Rs.2,92,589/- on account of corpus fund the penalty was levied. As
the foundation for levy of penalty has already been collapsed, hence
the penalty on the amount of Rs.1,30,85,423/- does not survive.
10. Coming to the affirmation of addition of Rs.2,92,589/- on
account of corpus fund by the Hon’ble Tribunal, we observe that in the
penalty order the AO has not dealt with this addition for levy of penalty
independently, but in fact before levying the penalty considered all the
additions conjointly . As the substantive addition has already been set
aside and issue pertaining to the same has already been remanded to
the file of the AO for decision afresh, hence the penalty on account of
corpus fund of Rs.2,92,589/- is also un-sustainable.
ITA No.3216/M/2024
Shri Tushar Mahendra Parekh
4
11. Consequently, the penalty under consideration is deleted,
however, with liberty to the AO to initiate the penalty proceedings
afresh, if desires so in the eventuality of making the addition afresh on
account of unexplained cash credit.
12. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2024.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Kishore, Sr. P.S.
Copy to: The Appellant
The Respondent
The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.