Skip to main content

Balkrishana Dhondiram Thorwat vs. ITO Ward 2&(2)(1)

Case No: I.T.A. No. 2966/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2016-17)
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai 'B' Bench
Date: 30 Sep 2024

Parties Involved

appellantBalkrishana Dhondiram Thorwat
respondentITO Ward 2&(2)(1)

Facts Summary

Balkrishana Dhondiram Thorwat filed an appeal against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the penalty was wrongly imposed despite the acceptance of the returned income as assessed income without any finding that the particulars were inaccurate or incorrect. The appellant also contended that the original return of income filed under section 139(4) should be treated as not filed at all due to the absence of e-verification. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act, and a notice under section 148 was issued to the appellant to file a return of income. The appellant filed a return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 7,00,010/- and the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which was confirmed. The appellant further appealed to the ITAT with the grounds mentioned above.

Decision in favour of

Assessee

Legal Issues

  • 1. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs.22,553/- despite accepting returned income as assessed income without there being a finding that the particulars which were supplied in the return of income are inaccurate, not exact or incorrect or not according to truth or are erroneous.
  • 2. The ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in ignoring the contention of the appellant that the original return of income filed u/s 139(4) should be treated as return of income not filed at all in absence of E-verification of the same and hence comparison of such invalid original returned income with assessed income u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B should not be made to levy penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

10 precedents cited in this judgement.

Opakhya LogoOpakhya

AI-powered tax-litigation platform. Find precedents using natural language, draft submissions in minutes, and run your entire case repository from a single secure workspace.

© 2025 Opakhya. All rights reserved.

Core Features

Additional Features

  • Smart Comments
  • Export Options
  • Quick Copy
  • Analytics Dashboard
Version 2.0.1Last updated: October 2025
Powered by AI & Machine Learning