PEST KILLER (INDIA), MUMBAI V. ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4465/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0700 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 22-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARJU GARODIA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

1 , INCOME-TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL -GBENCH MUMBAI , BEFORE S/SH.RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./4465/MUM/2016, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 M/S PEST KILLER (INDIA) 15, HINDI RAJASTHAN BLDG, BHAUDAJI ROAD, SION (W),MUMBAI 400 022 PAN : AAAFP3183F VS. ITO WD 21(2)(2) MUMBAI ( /APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / REVENUE BY : SHRI ARJU GARODIA /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 22/05/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/05/2017 , / PER RAJENDRA A.M. - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2016 OF THE LD.CI T(A)-38, MUMBAI THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL.THE ASSESSEE-FIRM,ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF PEST CONTROL AND HOUSE-KEEPING, FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.2010 DECLARING INCO ME OF RS.1.66 LAKHS.THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, U/S 143(3) OF THE AC T, ON 25.3.2013, DETERMINING ITS INCOME AT RS.11.25 LAKHS. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO OBSERVED T HE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN INCOME OF RS.72.87 LAKHS AS AGAINST THE INCOME RECEIPT OF RS. 82.46 LAKHS AS REPORTED IN ITS DETAILS. HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY ON 2.8.2013. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE AO INVOKED PROVISIONS OF EXPLANA - TION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) AND LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.2.96 LAKHS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS.AFTER CONSIDERI NG AVAILABLE MATERIAL, THE FAA HELD THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATES AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT,THA T THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, THAT IT HAD ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS AND HAD NOT AGITATED THE 2 ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES,THAT IT WAS NOT ABLE TO OFFER ANY ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE RECEIPTS,THAT IT H AD OFFERED TO SURRENDER THE DISPUTED AMOUNT AFTER THE SAME WAS DETECTED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS,THAT IT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT THE AO HAD R IGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT., THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF A GENUINE MISTAKE. REFERRING TO THE MATTER OF M AK DATA P.LTD (350 ITR 593) OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT,THE FAA CONFIRMED PENALTY LEVIED BY T HE AO. 4 .AS STATED EARLIER NONE APPEARED BEFORE US ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE ,NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT LETTER WAS FILED. ON 12.4.2017, ON REQUEST OF THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO BE HEARD TODAY. WE ARE COMPELLED T O DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE MATERIAL. 5. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT AGITATED QUANTUM ADDIT IONS, THAT THE AO HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THAT THE FAA HAD CONFIRMED HIS ORDER. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY THE R EVERSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE FAA.SO, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND MAY 2017. 22 , 2017 SD/- SD/- ( / RAM LAL NEGI) ( / RAJENDRA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; /DATED :22.5.2017. LR.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.