KAMALA CHETTANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2916/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 48803 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH A,MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR ( JM) I.T.A.NO.2916/MUM/2010 (A.Y.2006-07) ) M/S. KAMALA CHETTANI, FLAT NO.801-802, GAURAV GUNJAN, C- WING, BUNDER PAKHADI RD., KANDIVLI (W),MUMBAI-400067. PAN: AAAPC4346F VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-25(3)(2), MUMBAI APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY NONE. RESPONDENT BY SHRI S HRAVAN KUMAR. O R D E R PER R.S. SYAL, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) ON 18-01-2010 UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS .10,000/- IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IN RELATION TO THE AS STT. YEAR 2006-07. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSE E DESPITE NOTICE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH NOTICE U/S. 143(2 ) ISSUED ON 25-06-2007. THEREAFTER, ONE MORE NOTICE DATED 26-12-2007 WAS IS SUED, TO WHICH THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THE A.O. FURTHER ISSUED TWO NOTICES WHI CH WERE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSMENT WAS EVENTUALLY COMPLETED U/S.143(3) COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,64,270/- AS AGAINST DECLARED INCOME AT RS.1,61 ,070/-. THE A.O. IMPOSED PENALTY U/S.271(1)(B) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10 ,000/-, WHICH CAME TO BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. ITA 6610 & 6836M/08 BAJAJ AUTO HOLDINGS LTD. 2 3. IT IS SEEN FROM HE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSES SEE REQUESTED THE A.O. TO FIX THE DATE OF HEARING FOR RECTIFICATION, AND IT W AS ALSO ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED U/S.143(3), NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(B). IT IS NOTI CED THAT THE EVENTUAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S.143(3) AND NOT U/S.144. TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 (SC) HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR TECHNICA L OR VENIAL BREACH. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY. WE, THEREFORE, OVERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS ISSU E AND ORDER FOR DELETION OF THE PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 13TH DAY OF MAY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI: 13TH MAY , 2011. NG: COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE. 2. DEPARTMENT. 3 CIT(A)-35,MUMBAI. 4 CIT-25,MUMBAI. 5.DR,A BENCH,MUMBAI. 6.MASTER FILE. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI. ITA 6610 & 6836M/08 BAJAJ AUTO HOLDINGS LTD. 3 DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGN ATION 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 09-05-11 SR.PS/ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 10-05-11 SR.PS/ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS/ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/ 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS/ 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER *