Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee company, a government company incorporated as Maharashtra State's Channelizing Agency of Government of India's National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation, did not file its return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The case was reopened based on information available in the AIMS MULTI YEAR NMS of ITBA Portal, which indicated that the assessee had received interest income of Rs. 1,38,565/-, purchased shares amounting to Rs. 50,00,000/-, and purchased time deposits totaling Rs. 95,24,63,853/- during the year under consideration. A notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 24.03.2021, to which the assessee did not respond. Consequently, a scrutiny assessment was carried out ex parte under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, resulting in an addition of Rs. 61,34,22,428/-. Since the assessee did not comply with the notice under section 142(1) of the Act issued on five occasions during the assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings under section 272A(1)(d) of the Act were initiated. The assessee did not respond to the penalty notice, leading the Assessing Officer to impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/-.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Maulana Azad Alpasankhyank Arthik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2)(3), Mumbai

  Mumbai bench

• Kamal Kishor Patil vs. ITO (5), Panvel

  Pune bench

• Jitendra Kumar v. The Income Tax Officer

  Allahabad bench

• Raj Kumar Asnani vs. ITO

  Jaipur bench

• Santosh Maruti Pawar vs. ITO, Ward-14(5), Pune

  Pune bench

• SNG Microns Private Limited vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

  Patna bench