INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MUMBAI V. JAGJITSINGH NIRMALSINGH KHABERWAL, MUMBAI

ITA 5335/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8326 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY SHEEL GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: SUBODH RATNAPARKHI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5 335 /MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI F BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT (PRESIDENT) AND PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) ] ITA NO. 5 335 /MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), MUMBAI . APPELLANT VS JAGJIT SINGH NIRMAL SINGH KHABERWAL RESPONDENT N S INDUSTRIES, 401 GREEN PARK YOGI HILLS, B R ROAD, MULUND MUMBAI 400 080 [PAN: AMAPK5312P] APPEARANCES BY VINAY SHEEL GAUTAM FOR THE APPELLANT SUBODH RATNAPARKHI FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: : DECEMBER 1 9 , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : MARCH 12 ,2020 ORDER PER BENCH : 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29 TH JUNE 2018 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 12 . 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS 81,486 IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. AS LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE, LEARNED CI(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES HOLDING THAT A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WILL NOT HOLD GOOD IN LAW WHERE ALLEGED ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES HAS BEEN ONLY PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), ENTIRELY BASED ON ESTIMATION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ACCEPTS THIS FACTUAL POSITION BUT RELIES UPON THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER NEVERTHELESS. IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT, AND VIEW OF DIRECT DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME POINT, HE DOES NOT ITA NO. 5 335 /MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 2 PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER BEYOND PLACING RELIANCE, AND SOMEWHAT BLAND RELIANC E, ON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE POSITIONS, LOOKING TO THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT AND LOOKING TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON MATERIALLY SIMILAR FACTS, WE SEE NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE LI ST OF PRONOUNCEMENTS BEING PLACED ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 701/M/2018 SD/ - SD/ - JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR ( PRESIDENT ) (VICE PRESIDENT) MUMBAI, DATED THE 12 TH DAY OF MARCH , 2020 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI