ROHAN BLOODSTOCK PVT. LTD., MUMBAI V. A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-5(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4488/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9281 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILENDRA YADAV
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM ./I.T.A. NO. 4488/M/2012 (AY:2008 - 2009) M/S. ROHAN BLOODSTOCK PVT LTD., 122 / 112, HIRA BHAVAN, DR. R.R. ROY ROA D, PRARTHANA SAMAJ, MUMBAI 400 004. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 5(3), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AADCR 1113R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILENDRA YADAV, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24 .2.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 .3.2015 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 2.7.2012 IN CONNECTION WITH THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 9, MUMBAI DATED 27.3.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT, IN CONNECTION WITH THE VALUATION OF STOCK, ASSESSING OFF ICER FOUND DISCREPANCY IN VALUE RELATING TO THE CLOSING STOCK AND THE DISCREPANCY AMOUNT S TO RS. 4,75,000/ - . BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME CONSTITUTES AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. ACCORDI NGLY, ADDITION WAS MADE. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.75 LAKHS WAS MADE AND THE SAME IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE WRONG FIGURES RELATING TO THE SALE OF A HORSE. INSTEAD OF TAKING COST PRICE OF THE HORSE, SALE PRICE OF THE SUM OF RS. 5,25,000/ - WAS CONSIDERED AND THEREFORE THE MISTAKE. THE 2 SAME IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND THERE IS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION IN THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, CIT (A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AS REFERRED TO IN PAGE 7 TO 11 OF HIS ORDER AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRO UGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN ADOPTING THE CORRECT FIGURES AND THE SAME CONSTITUTES BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND IN THAT CASE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT EXCIGIBLE. HE ALSO MENTION ED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THE MALA FIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS THE CASE OF MERE RECALCULATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASING ON THE DATA ALREADY AVAILABLE ON RECORDS AND THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEES WILLINGNESS TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE WAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED BY FILING THE REVISED COMPUTATION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIO N WAS MADE ONLY BASED ON THE DATA AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THERE IS NO DEFAULT OF DISCLOSURE IN FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE FIND IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IS DELETED. THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (D. MANMOHAN) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) / VICE PRESIDENT / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 11/3/2015 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI