OOPAL DIAMOND,MUMBAI V. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 8071/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the assessee, Oopal Diamond, against the penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2009-10. The appeal was directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was based on incorrect facts and documents not pertaining to the year in question. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the dates and details of the assessment and penalty orders referenced by the CIT(A), leading to the decision to set aside the impugned order and remand the case for a fresh evaluation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837605 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIRABHADRA MAHAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU GANDHI
• Keywords: Set aside; Bogus
• Section: 147; 143(3); 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 8071/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) Oopal Diamond Suite No.2, B Wing, Laxmi Diamond, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AAAFO1064A ............... Appellant v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 19(1), Room No.506, 5th Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lal Baug, Parel, Mumbai- 400012 ……………… Respondent Assessee by : Shri Himanshu Gandhi Revenue by : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 17/02/2026 Date of Order - 19/02/2026 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order of dated 15.09.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“learned CIT(A)”], which in turn arose from the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2009-10. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8071/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2009-10) 2 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset, by referring to the impugned order, submitted that the learned CIT(A), while dismissing the assessee’s appeal against the penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, has considered incorrect facts, which do not pertain to the year under consideration. In this regard, our attention was drawn to paragraph 2.1 of the impugned order, wherein the learned CIT(A) has taken into consideration the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2009–10. Further, it was submitted that the reference to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act is also incorrect, as in the present case, the assessment order is dated 27.03.2015, whereas the assessment order taken into consideration by the learned CIT(A) is dated 14.12.2019. We find a similar error in the decision of the learned CIT(A) in paragraph 5 of the order, which is reproduced below: - “5.1 It is evident from the assessment order dated 14.12.2019 that the impugned purchases claimed by the assesse is treated as bogus in entirety. Further, the appeal filed by the appellant against the quantum addition made vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 14.12.2019 has been dismissed by National Faceless Appeal Centre vide order dated 15.09.2025. In view of the above, penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 dated 27.03.2019 is being upheld and the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed.” 3. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the learned CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after considering the correct facts in the assessee’s case for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.8071/Mum/2025 (A.Y. 2009-10) 3 without affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/02/2026 Sd/- VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 19/02/2026 Prabhat Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai. Printed from counselvise.com "