Alka Ashok Jagtap Vs. Income Tax Office

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, an individual, filed her return of income for A.Y. 2009–10 declaring a total income of Rs. 62,780/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened by the Assessing Officer by issuance of notice under section 148 dated 28.03.2013, invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act. The reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing relating to alleged bogus share transactions, purportedly linked to entities controlled by Shri Mukesh Choksi. After completion of reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed an order under section 143(3) read with section 147, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 7,09,828/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 62,780/-. The addition primarily related to an amount of Rs. 6,36,866/-, treated as unexplained/bogus share transactions. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Thane. The CIT(A)-1, Thane disposed of all the three appeals by a common order dated 25.05.2018 in ITA Nos. 408, 409 and 410/2014–15. The CIT(A) recorded that the assessee had disclosed in the return of income: Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) of Rs. 6,47,054/-, Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs. 72,596/-, and income from other sources of Rs. 52,180/-. Thus, the amounts which were subjected to dispute were already disclosed in the return of income, thoug…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty of Rs. 1,29,410/- levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is sustainable in law.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Anju Kesarwani Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Income Tax Officer vs. Harsha Asheshbhai Patel

  Ahmedabad bench

• Vikas Nahata

  SMC Bench, Kolkata benchAY 2011-2012Allowed

• Ritu Patwari vs. DCIT, CC-4(4), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Surendra Garg, HUF vs Income Tax Officer 19(3)(4), Mumbai

• Zany Share Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3)(4)

  Mumbai benchAY 2010-11Partly Allowed