UJJWAL SINGH RANA, MUMBAI V. ITO 25(1)(5), MUMBAI

ITA 366/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5405 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUNKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: UJJWAL SINGH RANA
• Section: 271(1)(c); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 366 /MUM./2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 1 1 ) UJJWAL SINGH RANA FLAT NO.A 701, BENHUR LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, OPP. KAMAT CLUB ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI 400 053 PAN AEWPR9325M . APP ELL ANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 25(1)(5), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI UJJWAL SINGH RANA REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR DATE OF HEARING 13 .0 5 .2019 DATE OF ORDER 17.05.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY. J.M. T HE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLE NG ING THE ORDER DATED 9 TH OCTOBER 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 37, MUMBAI, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED OF ` 7,33,445, U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 11 2 UJJWAL SINGH RANA 2 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWANCE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AND ULTIMATELY PASSED AN ORDER UNDER THE SAID PROVISION IMPOSING PENALTY OF ` 7,33,445, ALLEGING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3 . THOUGH , THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), HOWEVER, THE PENALTY IMPOSED WAS SUSTAINED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 4 . AT THE OUTSET, THE ASSESSEE APPEARING IN PERSON, SUBMITTED THAT , IN THE MEANWHILE , WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE VERY SAME AS SESSMENT YEAR IN ITA NO.1601/MUM./2016, DATED 8 TH JUNE 2018, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE , HE SUBMITTED , IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL, PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT SHOULD BE DELETED. 5 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AGREED THAT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 3 UJJWAL SINGH RANA 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT , THE BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, AS COULD BE SEEN, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING ASSESSEES QU ANTUM APPEAL IN THE ORDER REFERRED TO ABOVE HAS ALLOWED ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. T HEREFORE, THE VERY FOUNDATION ON WHICH THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED NO LONGER EXIST S . THAT BEING THE CASE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT ALSO SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 17.05 .2019 SD/ - MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 17.05.2019 4 UJJWAL SINGH RANA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI