DCIT 8(3), MUMBAI V. SULPHUR MILLS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3510/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7971 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K S CHOKSHI

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.3510/MUM/2013 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2006-07 THE DCIT 8(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. M/S. SULPHUR MILLS LTD., 604/605, 349, BUSINESS POINT, 6 TH FLOOR, WESTERN EXPRESS HIGHWAY ANDHERUI (E), MUMBAI-400 069 #) ! ./ %* ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCS 8736K ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . / APPELLANT BY: SHRI KISHORE DHULE ,-)+ / . / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.S. CHOKSHI / 01! / DATE OF HEARING :11.08.2014 23( / 01! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :13.08.2014 '4 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-18, MUMBAI DT. 27.2.2013 PERTAINING TO A .Y.2006-07. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE ADD ITION MADE U/S. 145A OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 3510/M/2013 2 3. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 2206 OF 2009. NO DISTINGUISHI NG FACT/DECISION HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE C ASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: THESE ARE SPECIALIZED PROVISIONS ON WHICH BONAFIDE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION IS POSSIBLE REGARDING THE SC OPE OF EXTENT OF ALLOWABILITY. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CON CEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH HAD BEEN FULLY DISCLOSE D. IN OUR VIEW, ON FACTS OF THE CASE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BONAFIDE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WO RDS USED IN THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) AND PENALTY FOR CON CEALMENT WILL NOT THEREFORE BE JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE S TANDS ALLOWED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 5' DATED : 13 TH AUGUST, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA NO. 3510/M/2013 3 '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