Case Law Details
Bharat Mahesh Malhotra Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
We note that AO has noted that during the course of survey, assessee has agreed for declaration of Rs. 6 lacs as additional income. In the profit and loss account, it has duly declared, the said credit of Rs. 6 lacs. However, after adjustment of the expenses profit was Rs. 2,34,576/-. In these facts, AO of the opinion that assessee has not declared what he has agreed under survey and he added Rs. 6 lacs. Firstly, we note that this is not a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Rs. 6 lacs declared during survey has been credited in the profit and loss account by the assessee. But, the AO was of the opinion that this should have been declared, over and above profit shown for the year. In our considered opinion, these facts do not lead to a conclusion that assessee is guilty of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Moreover, though we are not sitting in the merits of the case, it is settled law as declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Kader Khan (25 taxmann.com 413), that statement of survey without any corroborative material cannot be the sole reason for addition to income. In this view of the matter, when the addition itself is on such a weak footing, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) for such an addition is not at all sustainable. In this view of the matter, we set-aside orders of the authorities below and delete the levy of penalty in this case.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-1 dated 10.07.2019 and pertains to Assessment Year 2009-10. The issue raised is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 97,923/-.
2. Grounds of appeal read as under:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
