RAMESH M. JAIN, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1388/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 59791 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARTHASARTHY NAIK

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D.K. AGARWAL (JM) & SHRI T.R. SOOD (AM) I.T.A. NO.1388/MUM/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07) SHRI RAMESH M. JAIN, SUNRISE BLDG., 1 ST FLOOR, 5 TH ROAD, KHAR(WEST), MUMBAI-400 052. PAN:AABPJ1569L. VS. ADDL. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE 19(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400 012. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI SUBHASH CHHAJED. RESPONDENT BY SHRI PARTHASARTHY NAIK. DATE OF HEARING 17-01-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-01-2012 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, AM : IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUND : 1) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, IN CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY OF RS.10000 U/S 272A (1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF ITO-19(1)(2), MUMBAI, AS A WITNESS AND PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL PASSPORT AND COPY OF RETURN FOR VERIFICATION OF LOANS. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO ITO-19 (1)(2), THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US DID NOT ATTEND AND, THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.272A(1)(C) WERE INITIATED. IT WAS MAINLY CONTENDED IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GONE TO THE OFFICE OF ITO-19(1)(2) IN RESPONSE TO ITA NO.1388/MUM/2010 RAMESH M. JAIN 2 THE SUMMONS ON THE APPOINTED DAY I.E. 18-12-2008 AT 3.30 P.M. AND EVEN AFTER HAVING WAITED FOR 3 HOURS HE WAS NOT CALLED BY THE SAID ITO. AN AFFID AVIT WAS ALSO FILED IN THIS REGARD. THE AO CALLED FOR THE REPORT OF ITO-19(1)(2) AND IN THE REPORT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE WITNESS DID NOT ATTEND. IN FACT, NONE OF THE WITNESSES ATTENDED EXCEPT SMT. SHEETAL M. JAIN. IN THIS BACKGROUND, PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- WAS LEVIED. 3. ON APPEAL, THE ACTION OF AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT PENALTIES IN RESPECT OF THE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IN THIS REGARD HE FILED THE FOLLOWING ORDERS: 1. ITA NO.1228/MUM/2010 IN THE CASE OF SMT. RANJAN A JAIN (MUMBAI BENCH-D) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-0902010. 2. ITA NO.1389/MUM/2010 IN THE CASE OF SMT. ANITA R. JAIN (MUMBAI BENCH-G) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-11-2010. 3. ITA NO. 1385/MUM/2010 IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRAMIL A B. JAIN (MUMBAI BENCH-C) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-12-2010. 4. ITA NOS.1225, 1226 & 1227/MUM/2010 IN THE CASES OF M/S. MADANLAL C. JAIN (HUF) AND 2 OTHERS (MUMBAI BENCH-J) VIDE ORDER DATE D 19-01-2011. 5. ITA NOS.1383, 1384, 1387 & 1390/MUM/2010 IN THE CASES OF SHRI MAHAVIR B. JAIN & 2 OTHERS (MUMBAI BENCH-J) VIDE ORDER DATED 24-01- 2011. 6. ITA NOS.1382 & 1386/MUM/2010 IN THE CASES OF SHR I RAJESH B. JAIN (HUF) & ANR. (MUMBAI BENCH-D) VIDE ORDER DATED 30-06-2011. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE PENALTIES IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASES OF THE VARIOUS WITNESSES IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED ORDERS. THEREFORE, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1388/MUM/2010 RAMESH M. JAIN 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY , 2012. SD/- SD/- (D.K. AGARWAL) (T .R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 20TH JANUARY , 2012. NG: COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2.DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-30,MUMBAI. 4 CIT,CITY-19,MUMBAI. 5.DR, BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR , ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA NO.1388/MUM/2010 RAMESH M. JAIN 4 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATI ON 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 17-01-2012 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18-01-2012 SR.PS/ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/A M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER