IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER)

AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Janseva Majoor Sahakari ITO 22(1)(6), Sanshtha Maryadit, Piramal Chambers, Lower Parel, Room No. 1 Talmajlaopp Vadke Vs. Mumbai-400012.

House, T H Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai-400016.

PAN NO. AADFJ 0626 J Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Piyush Chhached Revenue by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/11/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/11/2025

ORDER

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated

07.06.2018 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 33, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2011-12 (sic). The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:

1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confining Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-Tux Act without appreciating that the notice issued us 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) did not Rs. 0 state as to why the penalty proceedings were initiated te whether for concealment OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars and therefore notice itself was bad in law and consequently the Penalty Order passed u/s

271(1)(c).

2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the Assessment Order passed u/s 144 did not bring out as to whether the Penalty was initiated for concealment OR furnishing of inaccurate particulars.

3. On the facts and Circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the quantum addition was made purely on the estimated basis without finding as to concealment of income OR furnishing of inaccurate of income and therefore penalty cannot be imposed

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ltd. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the Penalty of Rs.8,89,073/- on the Quantum Addition of Rs. 28,87,260/- without appreciating that the quantum addition was made on estimated basis being 10% of the Gross Receipts in an Order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act.

2. At the outset, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was a delay of 2570 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. counsel submitted that penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 were passed against the assessee on 29.09.2014 levying penalty of Rs.22,68,409/- and Rs.8,89,073/- respectively. Against which, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) disposed off the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 07.06.2016 and against which the assessee preferred appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, wherein the penalty was deleted vide order dated 27.06.2018. But the appeal for assessment year 2011-12 however was disposed off by the Ld. CIT(A) on 07.06.2018 confirming the penalty of Rs.8,89,073/- but in the said order dated 07.06.2018 inadvertently the Ld. CIT(A) mentioned the assessment year as 2010-11 and therefore, assessee misunderstood the same as appeal for assessment year 2010-11 and did not take any action presuming that appeal said assessment year was already disposed off by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Under this misunderstanding appeal for AY 2011-12 could not be filed within limitation period. The relevant submission of the assessee is reproduced as under:

“2. Penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12 were passed against the co-operative society dated 29.09.2014 levying a penalty of Rs. 22,68,409/- and Rs. 8,89,073/- respectively, against which appeals were preferred before CIT (Appeals).

3. Subsequently, the Co-operative society received an order of CIT (Appeals) - 33 for AY 2010-11 dated 07.06.2016 against which the society preferr