IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2331/M/2011 (Assessment Year:2002-2003) Shri Manish G. Mehta, DCIT, Central Circle -7, C/o. M/s. Free India Assurance Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Services Ltd., M.K. Road, Mumbai -020. 209, 2 nd Floor, Prime Plaza, J.V. Patel Compound, B.M. Road, Elphinstone (W), Mumbai 013. PAN : AHNPM2915N (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Darshan Gandhi, Respondent by : Miss Anupama Singh, DR Date of Hearing : 08.09 .2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23.09.2016 ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal filed by assessee on 22.3.2011 is against order of CIT (A)-28, Mumbai in connection with penalties levied by AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Act. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts of case are that assessee, who is individual, filed return of income originally u/s 139(1) of Act. However, in pursuance to proceedings u/s 132 r.w.s 153A of Act, assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 9,94,201/-. said return of income was accepted by AO and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 153A of Act. However, AO levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Act in respect of said total income assessed by AO. Matter travelled to first appellate authority and CIT (A) dismissed appeal. Aggrieved, assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 2 3. Before us, at outset, Ld Counsel for assessee brought our attention to order of Tribunal in case of Smt. Pushpa G. Mehta, L/H of Late Ashish G. Mehta, who is brother of assessee. Bringing our attention to facts of said case, Ld Counsel for assessee submitted that under similar circumstances, penalty was deleted. In support of same, Ld Counsel for assessee brought our attention to para 6 of said Tribunal s order in ITA No.2334/M/2011 (2002-2003), dated 2.1.2013. 4. After hearing both parties and on perusal of orders of Revenue Authorities as well as said order of Tribunal (supra) in case of Smt. Pushpa G. Metha, we find facts are comparable. Para 6 of said Tribunal s order (supra) is relevant in this regard. Considering significance of para 6 of said Tribunal s order (supra) and for sake of completeness of this order, same is extracted as under:- 6. In case before us, we observe that assessee filed return u/s 153A of Act voluntarily declaring excess income and AO assessed income as declared by assessee in return filed. Further, it is not case of Department that excess income declared by assessee in return filed u/s 153A viz-a-viz return of income filed u/s 139(1) is in pursuance to any incriminating material found during course of search. We are of considered view that levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not justified. Hence, we cancel penalty by allowing ground of appeal taken by assessee. 5. Considering above settled position of issue on identical facts, we are of opinion, there is no case for levy of penalty in present case. Hence, we respectfully following said decision of Tribunal allow grounds raised by assessee. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd September, 2016. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; 23.9.2016 . OKK , Sr. PS Copy of Order forwarded to : 3 1. Appellant 2. Respondent. 3.The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) , ITAT, Mumbai Manish G. Mehta v. DCIT, Central Circle-7, Mumbai