SALILKUMAR MAHUKARRAO MAJGAONKAR,NAGPUR V. ITO WARD 1(3), NAGPUR

ITA 389/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Salilkumar Mahukarrao Majgaonkar, an individual and a captain in the Merchant Navy, who appealed against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer for alleged concealment of income during the assessment year 2016-2017. The assessee had declared an income of Rs.7,79,010 but was found to have received a total consideration of Rs.1,85,00,000 from the sale of two flats, which was not fully reflected in his declared turnover of Rs.1,45,00,000. The Assessing Officer, after scrutiny, imposed a penalty for concealment of book profit, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, however, found that the penalty was unjustified as the assessee had provided all necessary details and explanations during the assessment proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471274 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: VEENA AGRAWAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.389/NAG./2024 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Salilkumar Mahukarrao Majgaonkar, 81, Hill Road, Ramnagar, NAGPUR–440 010. Maharashtra. PAN ACAPM4630Q vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), BSNL RTTC Bldg., Seminary Hills, NAGPUR – 440 006. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : MS. Veena Agrawal, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.01.2025 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.04.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, relating to assessment year 2016-2017. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed the return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring income at Rs.7,79,010/-. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was 2 ITA.No.389/NAG./2024 selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee has sold two flats and total consideration received for two flats was Rs.1,85,00,000/- [Rs.1,05,00,000/- + Rs.80,00,000/-]. Whereas the total turnover shown by the assessee was Rs.1,45,00,000/-. The Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) to the assessee and in response to the said notices, the assessee furnished all the requisite details from time to time. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.14,26,912/- by making addition of Rs.6,47,902/- on account of concealment of book profit and levied minimum penalty of Rs.1,79,756/- @100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 3. Against the said penalty order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) and the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs.1,79,756/- by observing that assessee has miserably failed to furnish satisfactory explanation during the course of penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings also. 3 ITA.No.389/NAG./2024 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, during the course of hearing, submitted that the assessee was a captain in Merchant Navy and most of the time he was not in India and was busy in looking after his ailing cancer father during the stop gap period. She submitted that assessee had neither concealed the income nor furnished in accurate particulars of income and, therefore, the impugned penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) be cancelled. 4. The Learned DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. We find that Assessing Officer has not given any reasons during the course of assessment proceedings and while initiating penalty proceedings also. In appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts of the case and the explanation offered by the assessee. We find that the assessee has neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished in accurate 4 ITA.No.389/NAG./2024 particulars of income which warrants the impugned penalty @ 100%. We, therefore, delete the impugned penalty confirmed by the learned CIT(A) and accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.01.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KHETTRA MOHAN ROY) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur, Dated 28th January, 2025 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned 4. The CIT, Nagpur concerned 5. The D.R. ITAT, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur 6. Guard File. //By Order// True Copy Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Nagpur Bench NAGPUR. "