MOHD. IMTIYAZ FAQIR MOHD SHAIKH , MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICE 23(2)(3) , MUMBAI

ITA 4020/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5568 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 271(1)(c); 69C; 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4020/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh, 100, Blue Flame Apartment, 40 S V Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai-400050. Vs. ITO Ward 23(2)(3), Room No. 115, 1 st floor, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400007. PAN NO. AGPPS 6863 A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Jayant Bhatt Revenue by : Mrs. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08/08/2024 Date of pronouncement : 19/08/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 16.10.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15 in relation to penalty levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions as under : 1. Short Term Capital Gain 2. U/s 56(2)(vii) 3. U/s 69C as unexplained investment 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by way of the impugned order. 4. Before us, the adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the same impugned order was filed by the assessee registered at ITA No. 3892/Mum/2023 and was heard on 01.07.2024. Before us, t ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on 10.07.2024, wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) has been deleted. The relevant part of the Co is reproduced as under: “4. We notice in additions herein additions represent the difference between actual sale/purchase considerations vis latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and inco from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the former actual sale/purchase price thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee. Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions Short Term Capital Gain Rs.21,72,253/ U/s 56(2)(vii) Rs.11,28,405/ U/s 69C as unexplained investment Rs.4,60,000/ On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by way of the impugned order. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought for adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the same impugned order was filed by the assessee registered at ITA No. 3892/Mum/2023 and was heard on Before us, the Registry pointed out that the Co ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) has been deleted. The relevant part of the Co- is reproduced as under: We notice in this factual backdrop that the formal twin quantum additions herein additions represent the difference between actual sale/purchase considerations vis-à-vis stamp valuation thereof, wherein latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and inco from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the former actual sale/purchase price stated in the relevant agreements. It is thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee. Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh 2 ITA No. 4020/MUM/2023 Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) vide order dated 26.06.2017 in respect of three additions Rs.21,72,253/- Rs.11,28,405/- Rs.4,60,000/- On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty levied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee sought for adjournment on the ground that a duplicate appeal against the same impugned order was filed by the assessee, which was registered at ITA No. 3892/Mum/2023 and was heard on out that the Co- ordinate Bench has already pronounced order in the said appeal on wherein the penalty levied and sustained by the Ld. -ordinate Bench this factual backdrop that the formal twin quantum additions herein additions represent the difference between actual vis stamp valuation thereof, wherein latter amounts) stand adopted for computing capital gains and income from other' sources; under section 50C and section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, respectively. There is no material in the case file which could suggest that the assessee had either received or paid anything over and above the stated in the relevant agreements. It is thus a case wherein learned lower authorities have wrongly treated the stamp valuation rate of the correspondence between sale and purchase transaction as inaccurate particulars submitted by the assessee. 5. The factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment proceedings. It is in these peculiar facts that we deem i quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter provisio Ordered accordingly. 4.1 Accordingly, the adjournment application o rejected. The instant appeal being duplicate and dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/- (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/08/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment proceedings. It is in these peculiar facts that we deem it appropriate to quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto attract the latter provision, to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly.” Accordingly, the adjournment application of the assessee was he instant appeal being duplicate, held to be infructuous In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. nounced in the open Court on 19/08/2024. - Sd/ (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Mohd. Imtiyaz Faqir Mohd Shaikh 3 ITA No. 4020/MUM/2023 factual position is hardly any different qua the third quantum addition of unexplained investment wherein the assessee could not substantive his explanation proving sources thereof in the assessment t appropriate to quote CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. (2010)322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty are parallel proceedings wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not ipso facto n, to delete the impugned penalty in very terms. f the assessee was held to be infructuous assessee is dismissed. /08/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai