KUMAR S. TAURANI, MUMBAI V. ACIT 16(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1856/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5213 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 201; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SHRI B .R. BASKARAN , AM & HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO . 1856/MUM/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) KUMAR S. TAURANI 901, VIVENDI SAROJINI NAIDU MARG, SANTACRUZ WEST, MUMBAI - 400 054 / VS. A CIT (OSD) RG - 8 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI - 400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AA APT7706J ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SH. DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA, AR / RESPONDENTBY : SH. ANOOP HIWASE, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 08/10 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/10/2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, J UDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) - 4 , MUMBAI DATED 23.12.16 FOR AY 2010 - 11 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW: - 2 I.T.A. NO. 1856 /MUM/201 7 KUMAR S. TAURANI 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,95,752/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED TAXABLE INCOME BY FILING A REVISED RETURN WHICH WAS NOT BONAFIDE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE RENT RECEIVED FOR THE PERIOD 01.04.09 TO 17.12.09 HAD BEEN INCLUDED AND OFFERED TO TAX IN THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE PRIOR ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUND. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL BEARING ITA NO. 5268/MUM/2013 F OR AY 2010 - 11 IN CASE TITLED ASSESSEES OWN CASE I.E. MR. KUMAR S. TAURANI VRS. ACIT DATED 17.03 .17 HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 3. ON THE PERUSAL OF PARA NO. 7 OF THE SAID ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO. 5268/MUM/2013 FOR AY 2010 - 11 DATED 3 I.T.A. NO. 1856 /MUM/201 7 KUMAR S. TAURANI 17.03.17 , WE NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAS RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 4. SINCE THE PRESENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE BORNE OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO BY THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT IN THE ABOVE CASE, T HEREFORE THE PENALTY ARISING OUT OF THE SAID ORDER DOES NOT STAND ON ITS OWN. IN V IEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND DISCUSSION, THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, THE AO WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO EXAMINE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, IF ANY, ON THE BASIS OF OUTCOME OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION IF ANY. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY . 5 . IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH OCT. , 201 8. SD/ - SD/ - ( B. R. BASKARAN ) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) / AC OUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 08 . 10 .201 8 SR.PS . DHANANJAY 4 I.T.A. NO. 1856 /MUM/201 7 KUMAR S. TAURANI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F I LE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI