THE DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI V. M/S. NUTECH COPORATE SERVICES LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IIT CAPITAL SERVICES LTD), MUMBAI

ITA 2205/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2001 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2008
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 220 5 & 2206/MUM/2008. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1995-96 & 1996-9 7. DY. COMMISSIONER OF M/S NUTEC H CORPORATE SERVICES LTD., INCOME TAX 8(2), VS. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS IIT CAPITAL MUMBAI. SERVICES P.LTD.), 28, RAJABAHADUR MANSION, 2 ND FLOOR, BOMBAY SAMACHAR MARG, FORT, MUMBAI 400001. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S. RANA. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-VII I, MUMBAI DATED 07- 01-2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-9 7 WHEREIN THE REVENUE DISPUTES THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY, LEVI ED U/S 271(1)(C), BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL REA DS AS FOLLOWS : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACTS THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT THAT OF THE CASE OF M/S ROBRANT INVESTMEN T PVT. LTD. 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPIT E SERVICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT EITHER. NONE HAVE FILED A POWER OF ATTORNEY OR VAKALAT IN THIS CASE. THE CASE HAS COME UP FOR HEARING ON 18-05-2009, 06-07-2009, 09-07-2009, 31-12-2009 AND TODAY I.E. 11-05-2010. ON NONE OF THESE OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO PRESENT HIMSELF. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISP OSE OF THIS CASE EXPARTE ON MERITS, QUA THE ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. HEARD SHRI S.S. RANA, THE LEARNED DR. THE AO HA S IN BOTH THE APPEALS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION OR DETAILS, IN RESPONSE T O A LETTER DATED 02-03- 2007, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. SUB CLAUSE (A) TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271( 1) READS AS FOLLOWS : EXPLANATION1: WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATE RIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT,- (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , OR THE CIT(APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FO R THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REP RESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CO NCEALED. 5. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVEN AN EXPLANAT ION, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE RESTORE THE ORDER O F THE AO AND REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF MAY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. MANMOHAN) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) VICE PRESIDENT. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 21 ST MAY, 2010. WAKODE COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, B-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI.