ACIT CIR 4, THANE V. VEENA DEVELOPERS, THANE

ITA 5191/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8328 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINAY SHEEL GAUTAM
• Section: 271(1)(c); 201; 191

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5191/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI F BENCH, MUMBAI [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT (PRESIDENT) AND PRAMOD KUMAR (VICE PRESIDENT) ] ITA NO. 5 191 /MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 1 - 12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4, THANE . APPELLANT VS VEENA DEVELOPERS RESPONDENT NIKHUNJ SIGNATURE, MANAV MANDIR AMBADI ROAD, VASAI ROAD (W) THANE 401 202 [PANK AAEFV3871C] APPEARANCES BY VINAY SHEEL GAUTAM FOR THE APPELLANT ANKITA LUNIA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING: : DECEMBER 18 , 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : MARCH 12 TH ,2020 ORDER PER BENCH : 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19 TH JULY 2018 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 1 - 12 . 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS 1,26,622 IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. A S LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE, LEARNED CI T (A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS ORDERS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES HOLDING THAT A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WILL NOT HOLD GOOD IN LAW WHERE ALLEGED ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF B OGUS PURCHASES HAS BEEN ONLY PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), ENTIRELY BASED ON ESTIMATION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ACCEPTS THIS FACTUAL POSITION BUT RELIES UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVERTHELESS. IN VIEW OF THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT , AND VIEW OF DIRECT DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME POINT, HE DOES NOT ITA NO. 5191/MUM/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 PAGE 2 OF 2 PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER BEYOND PLACING RELIANCE, AND SOMEWHAT BLAND RELIANCE, ON THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E POSITIONS, LOOKING TO THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT AND LOOKING TO A LARGE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON MATERIALLY SIMILAR FACTS, WE SEE NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1962, BY PLACING THE LIST OF PRONOUNCEMENTS BEING PLACED ON THE NOTICE BOARD. 701/M/201 8 SD/ - SD/ - JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR ( PRESIDENT ) (VICE PRESIDENT) MUMBAI, DATED THE 12 TH DAY OF MARCH , 20 20 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI