ASHOK R. BHANDWALKAR, PUNE V. ITO WD 26(2)4, MUMBAI

ITA 1393/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8926 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A K NAYAK

Judgement Text

I.T.A NOS.1392 & 1393/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, G BENCH, MUMBAI. [ CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR, AM AND V. DURGA RAO, JM ] I.T.A NOS.1392 & 1393/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ASHOK R. BHANDALWAKAR, .. APPELLANT FLAT NO.303, SHUBHAM PALACE, PLOT 85/86, SECTOR-15, KOPARKHAIRANE-400 709 PA NO.AAFPB 6509 G VS DY.COMM. OF INCOME TAX 26(2) ,. RESPONDEN T MUMBAI Y.P.PANDIT , FOR THE APPELLANT A.K.NAYAK, FOR THE RESPONDENT O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR: 1. BY WAY OF THESE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CALLED IN TO QUESTION CORRECTNESS OF CIT(A)S ORDERS DATED 3.11.2009 AND 31.12.2009, CONFI RMING THE PENALTY OF ` .9,439/- AND ` .9,553/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-2003 AND 2003-0 4, RESPECTIVELY. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF SEVERAL OTHER EMPLOYEES OF BHARAT PETRO LEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, WHO WERE IMPOSED PENALTIES U/S.271(1)(C) ON MATERIALLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. HE PLACED ON RECORD FOLLOWING COPIES OF ORDERS PASSED BY T HE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN, THE PENALTIES IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON SIMILAR FACTS: I) SHRI RAVINDRA L. SATHE V ITO(ITA NO.2828/M/2008) ORDER DATED 22.12.2009. I.T.A NOS.1392 & 1393/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 2 II) SMT. VERONICA J. CORREIA V ITO(ITA NO.5986, 598 7 & 5988/M/2009) ORDER DATED 30.6.2010 LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO WHOSE ALREADY DECIDED BY TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID- NOTED CASES. IN VIEW OF THIS, HE URGED BEFORE US TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C). ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVELY FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED, IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE,, BY TRIBUNALS ABOVE ORDERS, BUT NONETHELESS DUTIFULLY RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C ), UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON OTHER EMPLOYEES OF BPCL, HAS BEEN DELE TED BY THE TRIBUNAL. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, WE SET ASIDE TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS UNDER APPEAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2011 SD/- (V. DURGA RAO ) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 14 TH JANUARY, 2011 PARIDA COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),28, MUMBAI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-26 , MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH G, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI I.T.A NOS.1392 & 1393/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 3 I.T.A NOS.1392 & 1393/ MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 4