M/S SHRENUJ INVESMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. DY. CIT- 5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2549/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83561 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR SAMI
• Assessee Lawyers: APURVA R SHAH
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI , ! '# $ $ $ $ , % && , , '# ' BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2549/MUM/2013 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 M/S. SHRENUJ INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD., 501-A, DHARAM PALACE, 100/103 N.S. PATKAR MARG, MUMBAI-400 007 / VS. THE ACIT,CIRCLE -5(3), 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 #) ! ./ %* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACS 9379S ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . / APPELLANT BY: APURVA R. SHAH ,-)+ / . / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI VIJAY KUMAR SAMI / 01! / DATE OF HEARING :13.08.2014 23( / 01! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :20.08.2014 '4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-9, MUMBAI DT.8.2.2013 PERTAINING TO A.Y.2009 -10. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. 3. THE ROOT FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DT. 16.12.2011 MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN DISA LLOWANCE U/S. 14A ITA NO. 2549/M/2013 2 WAS MADE, THE DISALLOWANCE WAS COMPUTED AS PER RULE 8D. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T AND THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED AT RS. 2,07,900/-. 4. THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BU T WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STAT ED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A R .W. RULE 8D OF THE ACT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE DIS ALLOWANCES WERE MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS THEREFORE NO PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEE N LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUP PORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A HAS BEEN COMPUTED AS PER THE FORMULA GIVEN IN RULE 8D. COMP UTING THE DISALLOWANCES AS PER THE FORMULA PRESCRIBED UNDER R ULE 8D DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OR HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, DO N OT SEE ANY JUSTIFIABLE REASON FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH AUGUST, 2014 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5' DATED : 20 TH AUGUST, 2014 ITA NO. 2549/M/2013 3 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS '4 '4 '4 '4 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 6(0 6(0 6(0 6(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 7 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 7 / CIT 5. 8& ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. &9 : / GUARD FILE. '4 '4 '4 '4 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ; / < < < < % % % % (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI