Rahul Shamrao Mahajan, Jalgaon V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle,1, Nashik, Nashik

ITA 601/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Mr. Rahul Shamrao Mahajan, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2012-2013. The penalty was imposed following a search and seizure operation on 20.02.2019, which led to the declaration of additional unaccounted professional receipts amounting to Rs. 76,31,300. The Tribunal, however, found that the lower authorities had not provided any specific incriminating material during the search that justified the penalty under the stricter interpretation of the law as per the precedent set in Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137554 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar [2018] 9 SCC (1) (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.601/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2012-2013 Mr. Rahul Shamrao Mahajan, 13, Chinmay Hospital, Omkar Nagar, Jilha Peth, Jalgaon. PIN – 425 001. Maharashtra. PAN AFFPM0777A vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1, Income Tax Office, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Road, Nashik – 422 002. Maharashtra. Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 11.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.04.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune's Din & Order No.ITBA/ APL/S/250/2022-23/1043263377(1), dated 31.05.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that we hardly need to discuss the relevant facts at length so far as correctness of both the learned lower authorities imposing the impugned sec. 271(1)(c) penalty at Rs.23,70,433/- is concerned. This is for the precise reason that both the learned lower authorities have invoked 2 ITA.No.601/PUN./2022 Mr. Rahul Shamrao Mahajan, Jalgaon. sec. 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A to hold that but for the search in issue dated 20.02.2019 followed by initiation of sec.153A proceedings finally culminating in the corresponding assessment, the assessee would have never declared the additional income in question at Rs.76,31,300/- representing his unaccounted professional receipts. 3. Mr. Jasnani vehemently supported the Assessing Officer’s penalty order dated 17.02.2022 as well as the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion that both of them have rightly invoked 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 5A of the Act. He further sought to buttress the point that the assessee had nowhere declared the above additional income in his original return filed u/s.139(1) of the Act before the date of search. 3.1. All these Revenue’s arguments fail to evoke our concurrence for the precise reason that sec. 271(1)(c) Explanation 5A clauses (i) and (ii) envisages deemed concealment in case an assessee is found to be in possession of the specified material during the course of search. We do not see any such incriminating material against the assessee either referred in the Assessing Officer’s penalty order or in the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion. Faced with the situation, we hardly see any reason to uphold the impugned penalty as per stricter interpretation in light of Commissioner of Customs vs. Dilip Kumar [2018] 9 SCC (1) (SC). Ordered accordingly. 3 ITA.No.601/PUN./2022 Mr. Rahul Shamrao Mahajan, Jalgaon. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 13.04.2023. Sd/- Sd/- (G.D. PADMAHSHALI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 13 th April, 2023 VBP/- Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. The Appellant; 2. The Respondent; 3. The CIT(A), Pune-12, Pune. 4. 5. 6. The Pr. CIT (Central), Nagpur. The DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune Guard File BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary : ITAT : Pune