NAVNEET CHINTAMAN MHATRE, PUNE V. ITO 26(2)(3),

ITA 3752/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 375219914 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: T T JACOB
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH B MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGH AVAN (JM) ITA NO. 3752/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2002-03 & ITA NO. 3753/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2003-04 & ITA NO. 3754/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2004-05 M/S. NAVNEET CHINTAMAN MHATRE C/O. MR. D.Y. PANDIT ADV 1187/10, KRUPA, SHIVAJINAGAR, PUNE-411 055 PAN NO: AAHPM2342N VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(2)(3) MUMBAI-400 002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI T. T. JACOB RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRAKASH PANDIT O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS DA TED 26.10.2009 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-28 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. 2. THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE AP PEALS, WE ARE, THEREFORE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 3. THESE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 111 DAYS. THE L D. A.R., EXPLAINED THE REAONS FOR THE DELAY AND ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGA RD. NO SERIOUS OBJECTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. DR ON CONDONATION OF DELAY BECAUSE IN OTHER CASES OF THE SAME NATURE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY CONDONED THE DELAYS. AFTER CON SIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL BEFORE US, WE CONDONE THE DEL AY AND ADMIT THESE APPEALS FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SHRI D ILIP PHATAK, THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE, WAS WORKING IN BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPO RATION LTD. AT THE MATERIAL TIME. CERTAIN SELF-LEASE ARRANGEMENT WAS IMPLEMENTED BY T HE COMPANY PURSUANT TO WAGE NEGOTIATIONS HELD BY AND BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND EM PLOYEES UNION AND LEASE RENT WAS PAID IN LIEU OF HRA. THE COMPANY TREATED THE SA ID PAYMENT AS IF PROVIDING RENT- FREE ACCOMMODATION AND CALCULATED THE VALUE OF PERQ UISITE AS PER INCOME-TAX RULES. THE RETURN WAS FILED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, THE AO T AXED THE RENT GIVEN BY THE EMPLOYER AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUT DID NO T EXCLUDE THE VALUE OF PERQUISITE ALREADY TAKEN INTO COMPUTATION BY THE EMPLOYER. DEM AND WAS RAISED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE AND PAID THE TAXES. SUBSEQUENTLY, PENALTY CAME TO BE IMPOSED, WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LD . CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE US. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL IN SEVERAL CASES, COPIES OF SOME OF WHICH, HAVE BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. I. MR. MANGHAL GAONKAR & OTHERS V/S. ITO WARD 26(2), M UMBAI ITA NO.5879/MUM/2009 A BENCH II. SHRI RAVINDRA L. SATHE V/S. ITO WARD 26(2), MUMBAI ITA NO.2828/MUM/2008 D BENCH III. SMT. VERONICA J. CORREIA V/S. ITO 26(2)(1), MUMBAI ITA NO.5986, 5987 & 5988/MUM/2009 IV. SHRI ADRIN J. AUGUSTINE V/S. ITO WARD 26(2)(4), MUM BAI ITA NOS. 1922 TO 1924/MUM/2010 A BENCH 3 7. IN ALL SUCH CASES, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ORDERED FOR THE DELETION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEATURE HAVING BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. D.R., FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, W E OVERTURN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY IN BOTH THE C ASES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF MAY, 2011 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 27 TH MAY , 2011 ROSHANI COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI