Niraj Pratapbhai Shah vs. The Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Niraj Pratapbhai Shah, filed an appeal against the order dated 27.10.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The assessee had filed a return of income on 05.09.2013 declaring a total income of Rs.3,59,188/-. A search under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 took place on 11.09.2018 in the case of Shri Sanjay Shah and Jignesh Shah, resulting in the seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs.19,37,00,000/- related to accommodation entries and commission earned thereof. The case of the assessee was reopened under Section 147 of the Act after obtaining approval and notice under Section 148 of the Act, which was issued on 25.03.2020. The assessee did not file any response to the notice under Section 148 of the Act nor filed any submissions to the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act, directing the assessee to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-.…

Legal Issues

• 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs.40,000/- under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act.
• 2. Both the lower authorities passed orders without properly appreciating the facts and ignored various submissions, explanations, and information submitted by the appellant.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. 7NR Retail Ltd.

  Ahmedabad bench

• SH. MUKESH SINGLA & SONS (HUF), VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 28(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2014-15Partly Allowed

• M.Jayaprakash vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

• Aadi Real Estate Developers P.L. vs ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

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

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2013-14Allowed

• Basant Kumar Raut Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 61(1)

  Delhi Bench ‘A’ benchAY 2016-17Allowed