DILSA DISTRIBUTORS COMBINES, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 11(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4399/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3888 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E B ENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .TA NO. 4399/MUM/ 2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998-99 M/S. DILSA DISTRIBUTORS COMBINES, 1 ST FLOOR, NAAZ BLDG., LAMINGTON ROAD, MUMBAI-400 04 / VS. THE ITO, WARD 16(1)(2), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAAFD 3288K ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY: NONE / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP / DATE OF HEARING :28.07.2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05.08.2016 / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, MUMBAI DATED 27.03.2015 PERTAINING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1) ON LEVYING OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. ITA NO. 4399/M/2015 2 I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DROPPING/DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR RS. 17,32,500/- BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. II) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TOTALLY IGNORED THE RELEVANT DETAILS, DOCUMENTS/ CONFIRMATIONS & NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL B Y ORDER DATED 20.4.2016 IN ITA NO. 7007 OF 2011. THEREFORE, HE S UBMITS THAT PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE QUANTUM WILL NO T SURVIVE. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS PLACED BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS AFTER PASSING CONSEQU ENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE QUANTUM PROCE EDINGS. 5. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 1998-99 HAS BEEN SET ASI DE FOR VERIFICATION AND PASSING ORDERS BY FOLLOWING THE EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. SINCE THE ADDITION IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE SET ASIDE THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL COMP LETE THE PENALTY ITA NO. 4399/M/2015 3 PROCEEDINGS AFTER PASSING THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER G IVING EFFECT TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (C.N. PRASAD ) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ %' /JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; (' DATED 5 TH AUGUST, 2016 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+ ,%%-. , -.! , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , /01 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, *% //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI