MR. MADAN MOHAN MISHRA ,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4175/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Madan Mohan Mishra, the appellant, contesting a penalty of Rs. 6,08,625 imposed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271(1)(c) for alleged concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for the Assessment Year 2009-10. The penalty was based on additions made to the appellant's income, including agricultural income treated as undisclosed sources. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the penalty, which was later contested in the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the agricultural income issue had been set aside for reconsideration by a co-ordinate Bench and thus, the penalty was not applicable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473316 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: K
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2024
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2024
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No.871/M/2014, ITA No.4180/Mum/2015
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN UNAVEKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4175/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) Madan Mohan Mishra, R88C Industrial Area MIDC Rabale, Navi Mumbai 400067, Maharashtra v/s. बनाम The Income Tax Officer, 10(3)(3), Ayakar Bhavan 6th Floor, Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AABPM3701B Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Kiran Unavekar (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 13.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement 19.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 29.12.2017 is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 23.04.2015 as passed by the Income Tax Officer-10(3)(3), Mumbai for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- P a g e | 2 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra 1) That the order dated 29.12.2017 leving penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file in, as much as, he was not Justified to impose a penalty of Rs. 6,08,625/- for alleged finishing in accurate particulars of income, without considered the fact and circumstances of the case and the prevailing legal position on the issue. 2) That the order dated 29.12.2017 levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Ld. assessing officer is against the law and facts on the file in, as much as, he was not justified to impose a penalty of Rs. 6,08,625/- for alleged concealment of income / furnishing inaccurate particulars of income without clearing specifying the limb of section 271(c) of the Act, under which the penalty proceedings has been initiated and penalty levied. 3) That the appellant craves to add, amend, alter, modify or delete any of the grounds of the appeal or at the time of hearing. 3. In this case, assessee had furnished his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,86,721/-which comprised of following : Salary income from prama instruments 10,99,108/- Income from House Property 1,55,400/- Income from other sources 30,146/- Assessee suffered a net loss of Rs. under the head of Business Income 16,93,105/- Exempted Income and deduction under Chapter VIA 15,90,600/- The Assessing officer made additions as below: P a g e | 3 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra Agricultural Income under section 68 15,90,600/- House Property Income 55,230/- Disallowance of Expenses 4,74,345/- 3.1 The assessment in the case of the assessee was completed vide order dated 25/11/2011 of the passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Ld. assessing officer at an income Rs. 15,99,337/- against the return income of Rs. 9,86,721/- after making an addition of Rs. 15,99,340/- under section 68 of the act 1961 etc. The appellant filed an appeal before the Hon. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated 16/11/2013 granted partial relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Two lakh) out of expenses claimed.The appellant filed an appeal before the Hon. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and granted partial real if of Rs. 1,00,000/- one lakh out of expenses. Subsequently, the learned assessing officer, has imposed a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the act of Rs. 6,08,625/-, being 100% of the allegedly should to be evaded, for alleged furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty. 4. In the course of hearing of the case before us, it was pointed out by the Ld. Authorised representative of the assessee that co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Mumbai while dealing with the quantum appeal in its order in ITA No.871/M/2014 dated 19.08.2019 vide para 6 to 8 of the order has set aside the addition in respect of the agricultural income of Rs 15,90,600/- P a g e | 4 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra for reconsideration afresh to the Assessing officer allowing the appeal for statistical purposes. The Bench has followed the coordinate bench of Tribunal in assesses own case for AY 2010- 11 in ITA No.4180/Mum/2015 dated 16.06.2016 on the issue of agriculture income. Rest of the disallowances made on estimate basis have been reduced substantially. 5. Since the penalty imposed is basically w.r.t. the agriculture income treated as income from Undisclosed sources and the addition made is already restored to the AO for de novo consideration and decision, the present penalty order evidently does not survive. It appears that neither of the lower authorities have taken due note of this vital fact before resorting to levying penalty and upholding it. 6. On due consideration of all the relevant facts as stated above, we hold that the penalty imposed has no legs to stand which is therefore, deleted. 6.1 Appeal of the assessee is, therefore, allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/11/2024. Sd/- Sd/- BEENA PILLAI PRABHASH SHANKAR (न्याययक सदस्य /JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) P a g e | 5 ITA No. 4175/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2009-10 Madan Mohan Mishra Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक /Date 19.11.2024 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अयधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "