MR. ROSHANLAL GEHRILAL JOSHI, MUMBAI V. ITO-WARD 33(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4166/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0869 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “D” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4166/Mum./2023 Assessment Year 2014-2015 Mr. Roshanlal Gehrilal Joshi, B/702, Mahesh Tower, Sector-2, Charkop, Kandivali West, Mumbai – 400 067. Maharashtra.PAN AFSPJ6873R vs. The ITO, Ward-33(3)(2), Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai – 400 051 Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Dinkle Haria For Revenue : Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 22.07.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal, for assessment year 2014-2015, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/ 1045051423(1) dated 30.08.2022, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2 ITA.No.4166/MUM./2023 Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance seeking to delete sec.271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.6,80,360/-; it transpires with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the same pertains to quantum addition of Rs.28,34,537/- representing estimated undisclosed income @ 15% of the corresponding cash payments made to farmers amounting to Rs.1,88,96,917/- which has admittedly attained finality; the Assessing Officer concludes this an instance of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of taxable income. The CIT(A)-NFAC has confirmed the impugned penalty in very terms. 3. Both the parties reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the impugned penalty. The Revenue, more particularly, submitted that we ought to confirm the impugned penalty even the case that assessee has been found to have committed the default in issue u/sec.271(1)(c) of the Act. We note in this factual backdrop that the foregoing quantum addition was itself made on estimate basis than based on any cogent material in the assessee’s records indicating him either to have concealed or 3 ITA.No.4166/MUM./2023 furnished inaccurate particulars of taxable income. Faced with this situation, we quote CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein their lordships’ have settled the law that each and every quantum disallowance(s)/addition(s) does not attract the impugned penalty, since both are parallel proceedings in nature. We, therefore, delete the impugned penalty in very terms. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.07.2024 Sd/- Sd/- [GIRISH AGARWAL] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22 nd July, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Mumbai concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “D” Bench, Mumbai. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai Benches, Mumbai.