DCIT 9(2), MUMBAI V. HAZIRA CRYOGENIC ENGG & MANAGEMENT P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2030/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5133 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K K VED

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.2030/M/2012 (AY: 2006 - 2007) DCIT - 9(2), R.NO.218, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN , M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 20. / VS. M/S. HAZIR A CRYOGENIC ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTRION MANAGEMENT P. LTD., TECHNIMONT HOUSE, CHINCHOLI BUNER, 504 LINK ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI - 400 064. PAN : AABCH 0273 C ./I.T.A. NO.2034/M/2012 (AY: 2006 - 2007) DCIT - 9(2), R.NO.218, 2 ND FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI - 20. / VS. HAZIRA MARINE & CONSTRUCTRION MANAGEMENT P. LTD., TECHNIMONT HOUSE, CHINCHOLI BUN ER, 504 LINK ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI - 400 064. ./ PAN : AABCH 0272 M ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI PRAKASH / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. VED / DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.12.2013 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE TWO APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 27 .3.2012 AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A) - 39, MUMBAI COMMONLY DATED 27 .1.2012 FOR THE AY 2006 - 2007 . SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND THEY ARE BE ING DISPOSED IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. SINCE, THE G ROUNDS RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, T HEREFORE, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE GROUNDS RAISED WITH REGARD TO ITA NO. 2034/M/2012 , WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, WHETHER THE LD CIT (A) IS CORRECT IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME ACCRUED IN THE CURRENT YEAR ACCORDING TO MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND AS PER THE ARRANGEMENT SIGNED BY IT. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI K.K. VED , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE QUANTUM APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TRIBUNAL WERE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CI T (A) WERE DELETED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.6 .2013 . REFERRING TO ITA NO.2030/M/2012, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 10 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,74,80,406/ - WAS DELETED BY THE ITAT, AND READ OUT THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID PARA AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PENALTIES BEFORE US, ARE DELETED. FURTHER, REFERRING TO ITA NO.2034/M/2012, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 17 AND 18 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) DATED 14.6.2013, WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,67,38,378/ - WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AND READ OUT THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE SAID PARAS. FURTHER, HE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER IN BOTH THE APPEALS BEFORE US, ARE RELATED TO THE SAID QUANTUM ADDITIONS, WHICH ARE ALREADY DELETED. THUS, CONSIDERING THE SAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND TH E CIT (A). 5. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT IMPUGNED PENALTIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CONCERNED QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.6.2013 . THUS, SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE DELETED , THEREFORE, THE PENALTIES LEVIED ON THE ADDITIONS DO NOT STAND AND THE PENALTY ORDERS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE , WE DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTIES LEVIED IN BOTH APPEALS . ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED . 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH DECEMBER, 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (SANJAY GARG) (D. KARUN AKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 9 .12 .2013 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI