Gnyanoba Dagadu Masurkar Vs. ITO, Ward 6(5), Pune

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The income tax department received information that the assessee had received sale consideration on the sale of immovable property and TDS under section 194IA of the Act was deducted in the FY 2015-16. The assessee did not file the return of income for AY 2016-17. The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act and subsequently under Section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee did not comply with the notices. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 144 of the Act and made an addition of short-term capital gains of Rs. 2,65,00,000/- and interest income of Rs. 1,14,925/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 2,66,14,925/-. The Assessing Officer also levied a penalty of Rs. 90,09,013/- under section 271(1)(C) of the Act. The assessee filed separate appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the assessment order and penalty order. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeals in limine for delay in filing the appeals. The assessee then filed separate appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned?
• 2. Whether the addition and penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is justified?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Trupti Kamalkant Tiwari vs ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur

  Nagpur bench

• Bina Ghosh vs Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2016-17Allowed

• Hans Raj vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Damyanti Atul Shah v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward – 20(1)(1)

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Rockfield Mining Minerals Private Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2018-19Partly Allowed

• Subramaniam Suresh Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem