The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 4619 (Mum-Trib)

IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH

MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. & N.K. PRADHAN, A.M.

Hiten Yogesh Thakkar v. ITO

I.T.A. No. 2283/Mum/2019

2 November, 2020

In favour of assessee.

Assessee by: Mehul Shah, A.R.

Revenue by: R. Bhoopathi, D.R.

ORDER

N.K. Pradhan, A.M.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)-38, Mumbai [in short 'CIT(A)'] and arises out of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (the 'Act').

2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under :--

1. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, the assessing officer erred in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the notice initiating penalty under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law.

2. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeal) erred in upholding action of the assessing officer in levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 120,000 without appreciating that the addition of alleged non-genuine purchases was made on a difference of opinion; and there was neither concealment of income nor filing of inaccurate of income, as the Appellant had furnished all material particulars in support of its claim of purchases further supported by the order of MAVT Department accepting the same purchases which the assessing officer treated as non-genuine.

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT