IDBI INTECH LTD, NAVI MUMBAI V. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2806/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75387 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 24-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT THAKKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M L PERUMAL
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JM) & SHRI RAJENDRA (AM) I.T.A. NO. 2806/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) M/S. IDBI INTECH LTD. IDBI BUILDING 1 ST FLOOR PLOT NO. 39-40 SECTOR-11 CBD BELAPUR NAVI MUMBAI-400 614. VS. ACIT 10(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. PAN/GIR NO . AAACI6279C ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.L. PERUMAL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI NISHANT THAKKAR DATE OF HEARING : 24.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 15.1.2014 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL (JM) : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AGAINST THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 15.2.2012 VIDE WHICH LEARNED CIT(A) HA S CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY OF RS. 16,39,8 52/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REFERRED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.8.2013 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALT Y HAS BEEN IMPOSED. THEREFORE THE VERY BASIS FOR WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IM POSED HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE PENALTY ORDER BE QU ASHED. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT DISPUTED ABOVE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. M/S. IDBI INTECH LTD . 2 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.8.2013 IN QUANTUM APPEAL, COPY PL ACED ON FILE. WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 48,71,812/-. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.8.2013(SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE RECEIVED PERMISSION FROM RBI TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY ON 23.2. 2006 TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THEREFORE WE AGREE WITH LEARNED AR T HAT THE VERY BASIS IN RESPECT OF WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED HAS BEEN RESTO RED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND ACCORDINGLY, IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INACCURATE AND/OR THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT CLAIM OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS. 48,71,812/-. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, PENALTY ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS SET ASIDE. HOWEVER, WE MAY STATE THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO CONSIDER LEVY OF PENALTY A S PER LAW AFTER MAKING THE ASSESSMENT BY A REASONED ORDER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBJECT TO ABOVE OBSERVATI ONS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014 . SD/ - (RAJENDRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - (B.R. MITTAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 15/1/2014 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT M/S. IDBI INTECH LTD . 3 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI PS