, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, C MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1971/MUM/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 DCIT-9(1), ROOM NO.260A, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI-400020 / VS. M/S ABS ELECTROPLATES (INDIA) PVT. LIMITED, 23& 24, FIRST FLOOR, M.K. BROTHERS INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, JARIMARI, ANDHERI KURLA ROAD, ANDHERI(E), MUMBAI-400072 ( / REVENUE) ( !' # /ASSESSEE) P.A.NO . AAECA1888R $ % # & / DATE O F HEARING : 28/12/2017 % # & / DATE OF ORDER: 28/12/2017 ! / REVENUE BY SHRI A. GARODIA-DR !' # ! / ASSESSEE BY NONE ITA NO. 1971/MUM/2016 ABS ELECTROPLATERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08/01/2016 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI, RESTRICTING THE PENALTY TO 2% INSTEAD OF 20 % OF THE SA TAX IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXP LAIN SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE IN MAKING THE PAYME NT OF TAXES DUE ON ACCOUNT OF POOR FINANCIAL POSITION/NON - AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS. 2. DURING HEARING, NONE WAS PRESENT FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF REGISTERED AD NOTIC E. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PRESENTED ITSELF NOR MOVED ADJOURN MENT PETITION. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO PROCE ED EX- PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AND TEND TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON TH E OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR, SHRI A. GARODIA, DEFENDED THE ADD ITION BY ADVANCING ARGUMENTS, WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE G ROUND RAISED. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, ALL TAXES WERE PAI D BY THE ITA NO. 1971/MUM/2016 ABS ELECTROPLATERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 3 ASSESSEE UPTO 31 ST DECEMBER 2014 AND BEFORE THAT DUE TO POOR FINANCIAL POSITION/NON-AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSM ENT TAX ON OR BEFORE THE FILING OF RETURN. THE RETURN W AS FILED IN TIME, WHEREIN, OUTSTANDING LIABILITY WAS CLEARLY RE FLECTED AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DISOBEY THE PROVISION S OF LAW. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS TECHNICAL DEFAULT. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) CONSIDERING THE DECISION FROM HON'BLE APEX COURT IN HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 AND HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS P.S . HATHIRAMANI 207 ITR 483 (BOM.) RESTRICTED THE PENAL TY AT THE RATE OF 2% AS AGAINST 25% IMPOSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF TECHNICAL DEFAULT DU E TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DESERVES A LENIENT VIEW, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ALL THE TAXES WERE SUBSE QUENTLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT IN DISPUTE, THUS, WE D ONT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. ITA NO. 1971/MUM/2016 ABS ELECTROPLATERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 4 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF LD. DR AT THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 28/12/2017. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '!# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $!# /JUDICIAL MEMBER $ MUMBAI; ( DATED : 28/12/2017 F{X~{T? P.S / /. .. %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *+,- / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. ./,- / THE ASSESSEE. 3. 1# ( *+ ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. 34 .# , *+& * 5 , $ / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 6! 7$ / GUARD FILE. ! / BY ORDER, /3+# .# //TRUE COPY// /! (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ / ITAT, MUMBAI