PIYUSH B. VIRANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 4(2091), MUMBAI

ITA 2987/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70603 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARESH JOHRI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI - C BENCH. . .. . . .. . , ,, , !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ , ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARVA,PRESIDENT & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 2987 & 2988/MUM/2012 , ' ' ' ' ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR-1995-96 & 1996-97 PIYUSH B. VIRANI 214 VEENA CHAMBERS, 21 DALAL STREET FORT MUMBAI- 400001 VS. ITO 4(2) (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI- 400020 PAN:ABJPV2920Q ( )* / APPELLANT ) ( +,)* / RESPONDENT ) )* )* )* )* - - - - ' '' ' / APPELLANT BY : NONE +,)* . - ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PARESH JOHRI, DR ' ' ' ' . .. . /0 /0 /0 /0 / DATE OF HEARING : 08 -08-2013 12( . /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-08-2013 %'3 / O R D E R PER RAJENDRA, AM THE FOLLOWING ARE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY TH E APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03-02- 2012 OF THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI FOR THE AY 1995-96. 1.1.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 8, MUMBAI, [ID. CIT (A)] ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (T HE ACT) WITHOUT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT, EFFECTIVE AN D PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE FINALIZING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. 1.2IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUM STANCE OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, THE PENALTY ORDER S O FRAMED BY THE ID. CIT (A) IS BAD AND ILLEGAL, HAVING FRAMED I N BREACH OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURE JUSTICE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE : 2.1THE ID. CIT (A) ERRED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS. 10,86,680/- U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT ON THE ALLE GATION OF FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE APPE LLANT 2.2 DOING SO, THE ID. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT: (I) THE ISSUES HAD NOT REACHED FINALITY AS THE APPE AL OF THE APPELLANT WAS PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND (II) THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IS DISTINCT FROM THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING AND, AS SUCH, THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING CANNOT BE MECHANICALLY RELIED UPON WHILE LEVYING PENALTY. 2.3IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH PENALTY WA S LEVIABLE. 2.4THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED OF R S. 1086,680/-, BE DELETED IN TOTO. 3.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ALL OR ANY THE ABOVE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2 ITA NO. 2987 & 2988/MUM/2012 PIYUSH B. VIRANI. 2. IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN FILED FOR TH E NEXT AY ALSO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ABOUT AMOUNT OF THE PENALTY LEVIED. 3. ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED THAT MATTER WILL BE HEARD ON 08-08-2013. BUT, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. NOR THERE IS ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOUR NMENT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 460 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. IN THIS REGARD WE ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL). 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE PRO VISION OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISS ED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 08 TH AUGUST, 2013. %'3 . 12( ' # 5 FNUKAD 08.08.2013 2 . 6. SD/- SD/- ( . . - H.L.KARWA) ( !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ !'#$ / RAJENDRA) / PRESIDENT ' ' ' ' %& %& %& %& /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, 7%' /DATE: 08 TH AUGUST,2013 SK %'3 %'3 %'3 %'3 . .. . +/8 +/8 +/8 +/8 9'8(/ 9'8(/ 9'8(/ 9'8(/ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / )* 2. RESPONDENT / +,)* 3. THE CONCERNED CIT (A) / : ; , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / : ; 5. DR C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / 8<6 +/' LH LH LH LH , . . # . 6. GUARD FILE/ 6 = ,8/ ,8/ ,8/ ,8/ +/ +/+/ +/ //TRUE COPY// %'3' / BY ORDER, > / ? ! DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI