PINAKIN PAREKH,MUMBAI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-51, MUMBAI

BMA 25/MUM/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 46300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2024
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER BMA No.23/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2019-20), BMA No.24/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2020-21) & BMA No.25/MUM/2024 (A.Y. 2021-22) Pinakin Parekh Flat B 1704, Ashok Garden, Tokersey, Jivraj Road, Mumbai, Sevri S.So, Maharashtra-400015 v/s. बनाम Acit/Dcit-Cir.42(3)(1), Mumbai Aaykar Bhavan, Maharashi Karve Road, Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AKLPP5959J Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi Date of Hearing 02.12.2024 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRAKASH KANT [A.M.] :- These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai-51 [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] passed in terms of section 16(7) of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income & Assets) and Imposition of the Tax Act, 2015 [hereinafter referred to as “BMA”], for Assessment Years [A.Y.] 2019-20, P a g e | 2 BMA Nos.23, 24 & 25/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2019-20. 2020-21, 2021-22 Pinakin Parekh 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively. The grounds raised in the appeals are reproduced as under: AY 2019-20 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact by passing an assessment Order under Section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the grounds of alleged non-disclosure of Foreign Assets without appreciating the fact that employee already disclosed the same in salary details. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of finalization of the appeal proceedings.” AY 2020-21 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact by passing an assessment Order under Section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the grounds of alleged non-disclosure of Foreign Assets without appreciating the fact that employee already disclosed the same in salary details. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of finalization of the appeal proceedings.” AY 2021-22 “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law and in fact by passing an assessment Order under Section 43 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015. 2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in law by imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the grounds of alleged non-disclosure of Foreign Assets without appreciating the fact that employee already disclosed the same in salary details. 3. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter, or delete any grounds of appeal during the course of finalization of the appeal proceedings.” 2. The briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee, who was employed with JP Marketing India Pvt. Ltd., had received restricted stock units listed in the USA Stock Exchange but same were not disclosed in the prescribed schedule of the Income tax return, and therefore, the AO levied P a g e | 3 BMA Nos.23, 24 & 25/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2019-20. 2020-21, 2021-22 Pinakin Parekh penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each for AYs. 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2021-22 respectively invoking section 43 of BMA. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the penalty. 4. Before us, a letter duly signed by the assessee has been filed stating that the assessee has paid the penalty amount, and therefore, did not wish to litigate the matter, hence, requested for withdrawal of the appeal for all the three assessment years. 5. In view of the request for withdrawal of the appeal by the assessee, all the three appeals of assessee are dismissed as withdrawn. 6. In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- RAHUL CHAUDHARY OM PRAKASH KANT (न्यातयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखाकार सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai ददनाुंक/Date 02.12.2024 अदनक ेत द ुंह राजपूत/स्टेनो आदेश की प्रतितलतप अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 4. दिभागीय प्रदतदनदध, आयकर अपीलीय अदधकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. P a g e | 4 BMA Nos.23, 24 & 25/Mum/2024 A.Y. 2019-20. 2020-21, 2021-22 Pinakin Parekh त्यादपत प्रदत //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अतधकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "