SANDEEP BABULAL DOSHI , MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WD-26 (3) (1), MUMBAI

ITA 6011/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6664 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K GALGOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: GOYAL SHASHIKANT
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6011/MUM/2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) SANDEEP BABULAL DOSHI, R.NO. 120, SANKALP SIDDHI, LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI-400007. VS. I.T.O.-26(3)(1) C-41 TO C-43, KAUTILYA BHAVAN, 3 RD FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051. PAN/GIR NO. AHFPD 1157 P (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI GOYAL SHASHIKANT (AR) REVENUE BY SHRI R.K. GALGOTRA (DR) DATE OF HEARING 03/02/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04/02/2020 / O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 27/05/2019 OF LD. CIT(A)-38, MUMBAI FOR THE A.Y. 20 10-11 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE A .O. ON GETTING INFORMATION FROM THE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION, MUMBAI TO THE EFFECT THAT THERE WAS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER ON INVESTIGATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS DOING CHEQUE/D.D DISCOUNTING ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH COMMISS ION WAS EARNED. ITA NO. 6011/MUM/2019 SANDEEP BABULAL DOSHI VS ITO 2 ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION @ 2% OF THE CAS H DEPOSIT AS ASSESSEES INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS REDUCED THE ESTIMATED ADDITION FROM 2 TO 0.25%. HOWEVER, TH E A.O. LEVIED PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION UPHELD WHICH WAS C ONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND FOUND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS WITH REGARD TO RATE OF COMMISSION EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE PLETHORA OF DECISIONS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. IN THI S CASE, THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED COMMISSION OF 2% WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF 0.25%. THUS, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN UPHELD ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTIMATED INCOME. APPLYING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PEN ALTY SO IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THE ESTIMATED ADDITION SO UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, I DIRECT TO DELETE THE SA ME. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2020. SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 04/02/2020 *RANJAN ITA NO. 6011/MUM/2019 SANDEEP BABULAL DOSHI VS ITO 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//