SACHIND P. KULKARNI, PUNE V. ITO 26(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1930/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48485 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS VANDANA SAGAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D: MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1930/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-2002 SACHIN P. KULKARNI NEW PANVEL - 410206 PAN AFVPK3201K VS. ITO 26 (2) (4) MUMBAI 400 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : -NONE- FOR RESPONDENT : MRS. VANDANA SAGAR (DR) ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. 1. PENALTY OF RS.4736/- LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICE R UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE I.T. ACT, HAVING BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL WITH A DELAY OF 20 DAYS AND PLACED ON RECORD A PETITION EXPLAINI NG THE REASONS FOR DELAY. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE DELAY INVOL VED AND THE REASONS EXPLAINED, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. APPEAL ADMI TTED. 2. FACTS IN SHORT ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALAR IED EMPLOYEE OF BPCL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES OF BPCL, INCLUDI NG THIS ASSESSEE, HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME AS PER TDS SALARY CERTIFICAT ES AND HAD NOT DISCLOSED LEASE RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES RECEIVED DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BUT OFFERED TO TAX AFTER DETECTION BY DEPARTME NT. CONSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON SUCH REASONS, PENALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAV E HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES IN THE FOLLOWING CASES WHEREIN IDENT ICAL EXPLANATION OF THE OTHER EMPLOYEES OF BPCL WAS ACCEPTED AS A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION AND PENALTY WAS CANCELLED ON THAT ACCOUNT. 2 (I) ITA. NOS. 5879/MUM/2009 ETC., DATED 27-8-2010 MRS. MANGHAL GAONKAR, THANE (W)-400 601. (II) ITA. NO. 2828/M/2008 DATED 22-12-2009 SHRI RAVINDRA LAXMAN SATHE, MUMBAI. (III) ITA. NOS. 5986, 5987 & 5988/M/2009 DATED 30-6-2010 SMT. VERONICA J. CORREIA, MUMBAI. 4. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN THEREIN IN THE A FORECITED DECISIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-4-20 11. SD/- SD/- (B.RAMAKOTAIAH) (D.MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATE 21 ST APRIL, 2011 VBP/- COPY TO 1. SACHIN P. KULKARNI, FLAT NO. 504, A-WING, INDIRA AANGAN, PLOT NO.2, SECTOR-9, KHANDA COLONY, NEW PANVEL 410206 PA N AFVPK3201K 2. I.T.O. 26 (2) (4), MUMBAI 400 002 3. CIT(A)-28 MUMBAI. 4. CIT, MUMBAI CITY-26, MUMBAI 5. DR D BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI.