RAVINDRA UTTAM KATAKDOUND, PUNE V. ITO 26(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2371/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 237119914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C G K NAIR
• Assessee Lawyers: I P PANDIT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R V EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A NOS: 2370/MUM/2010 AND 2371/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 AND 2004-05) RAVINDRA UTTAM KATAKDOUND, NAVI MUMBAI APPELLANT (PAN: AAGPK7550B) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(1)(4), MUMBAI RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: MR I P PANDIT REVENUE BY: MR C G K NAIR DATE OF HEARING: 21.07.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.07.2011 O R D E R R V EASWAR, PRESIDENT: THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTI ES OF ` 41,338/- AND ` 24,012/- RESPECTIVELY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PENALTIES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORA TION LIMITED (BPCL). HE FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME AS PER THE SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY BPCL IN FORM NO:16. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE LEASE RENT AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES RE CEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE HOUSE PROPERTY OWNED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO: 2370/MUM/2010 ITA NO: 2371/MUM/2010 2 HAD ON THE OTHER HAND CLAIMED INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN TAKEN FOR ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPERTY TREATING THE LEASED O UT PROPERTY AS SELF-OCCUPIED PROPERTY. IN FACT ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF BPCL HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME ON THIS BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER COLLECTED INFORMATION FROM BPCL FROM WHICH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF LEASE RENT INCLUDI NG ARREARS AND THE MAINTENANCE CHARGES. THESE RECEIPTS WERE ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENTS AND P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEES EXPLA NATION IN REPLY TO THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS REJECTED AND THE IMPUGNED PE NALTIES WERE LEVIED, WHICH WERE ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), AG AINST WHICH THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED. 3. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE SEVERAL ORDERS O F THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, BY WHICH SIMILAR PENALTIES LEVIED O N THE EMPLOYEES OF BPCL ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS WERE CANCELL ED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE DETAILS OF THE ORD ERS OF THE TRIBUNAL:- 1. MR MANGHAL GAONKAR, ITA NO: 5879/MUM/2009 MR LALCHAND P VISHWAKARMA, ITA NO: 5674/MUM/2009 MR VINAYAK HINDLEKAR, ITA NO: 5878/MUM/2009 MRS RAJASHREE SATARDEKAR, ITA NO: 5880/MUM/2009 KISHORE KUMAR NAIR, ITA NO: 5180/MUM/2009 MR MAKRAND VAIDYA, ITA NO: 6056/MUM/2009 ORDER DATED 27.08.2010 2. SHRI RAVINDRA L SATHE, ITA NO:2828/MUM/2008 ORDER DATED 22.12.2009 3. SMT VERONICA J CORREIA, ITA NOS: 5986, 5987 & 5988/MUM/2009 ORDER DATED 30.06.2010 4. SHRI ADRIAN J AUGUSTINE ITA NOS: 1922 TO 1924/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 07.01.2011 ITA NO: 2370/MUM/2010 ITA NO: 2371/MUM/2010 3 5. MR KESHAVAN P PILLAY, ITA NO: 1595/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 12.01.2011 6. WINSTON I RODRIGUES ITA NOS: 1606, 1572 & 1574/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 07.01.2011 7. SHAILESH R PRAJAPATI, ITA NO: 1708/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 28.01.2011 8. MR DILIP N PHATAK, ITA NO: 1931/MUM/2010 MR RAJESH V GAD, ITA NO: 1932/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 18.02.2011 9. MR CHANDRAKANT K MAHADKAR ITA NOS: 1918 TO 1921/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 11.02.2011 10. SHRI ASHOK JADHAV, ITA NO: 2369/MUM/2010 ORDER DATED 23.02.2011 11. MRS SYBIL LOBO, ITA NO: 3569/MUM/2009 ORDER DATED 11.03.2011 COPIES OF THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED, FROM WHICH WE FIND THAT THE PENALTIES IMPOSED ON BP CL EMPLOYEES UNDER IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES WERE CANCELLED ON THE GROUND THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF T HAT WHATEVER INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE EMPLOYER WAS INCLUDED IN T HE SALARY BY THE EMPLOYER COMPANY AND SUBJECTED TO TDS. SINCE T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN THE PRESENT CASE, RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WERE PA SSED ON SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE CASE OF EMPLOYEES OF BPCL, WE CANCEL THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES AND ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) (R V EASWAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDE NT MUMBAI, DATED 29 TH JULY 2011 SALDANHA ITA NO: 2370/MUM/2010 ITA NO: 2371/MUM/2010 4 COPY TO: 1. RAVINDRA UTTAM KATAKDOUND C/O MR D Y PANDIT ADV. 1187/10, KRUPA, SHIVAJINAGAR PUNE 411 055 2. ITO 26(1)(4), MUMBAI 3. CIT-26, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A)-28, MUMBAI 5. DR D BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI