ITO 8(1)3, MUMBAI V. EDIT SYSTEMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1384/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2358 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH GATAGAT
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 1384/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE IT O 8 (1) 3 , ROOM NO. 206, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K.ROAD, MUMBAI- 400 020. VS. M/S. EDIT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. 101, 1 ST FLOOR, ANMOL CHS LTD., FRENCH BRIDGE, OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI- 400 007. PAN- AAACE6541K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. NITIN WAGHMODE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. ASHISH GATAGAT DATE OF HEARING: 19 /10 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/10/201 6 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST ORDER DATED 27/01/2012 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(APPEALS)-16, MUMBAI FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER O N FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,42 ,387/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2 ITA NO. 4854/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF B Y THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,17,198/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE ALLOWABILITY OF TH E IMPUGNED DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) R.W.S.36(2) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY BALANCE WRITTEN OFF B Y THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,17,198/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE BASIC CONDITION LAID DOWN U/S 36(2) HAD NOT BEEN FU LFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THIS CASE IS BELOW RS.10,00,000/- AND AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015, DATED 10/12/2015, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT M AINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT I N DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN APPEAL DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SPECIFIED IN PARA 8 OF THE CI RCULAR. SINCE, IT HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY CLARIFIED IN THE CIRCULAR AFORESAID TH AT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY TO ALL THE PENDING APPEALS; THE PRE SENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. WE, THEREFORE, DISMIS S THE SAME IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2016 3 ITA NO. 4854/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SD/- SD/- ( B.R.BASKARAN ) (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED: 19/10/2016 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. !' , $ !' % , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &' ( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI PRAMILA