GALBRO ISPAT GALVANISERS P LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 9(1)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 5277/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3511 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH KOLAPOKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5277/M/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007 - 2008 ) GALBRO ISPAT GALVANISERS PVT LTD., 801, 8 TH FLOOR, PALM SPRING CENTRE, NEAR D MART, LINK ROAD, MALAD (W), MUMBAI 400064. / VS. ITO - WARD 9(1)(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 400 020. ./ PAN : AACCG3423C ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI UMESH KOLAPOKAR / RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 29 .02.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 .02.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 22.8.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 19, MUMBAI DATED 7.6.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED SIX GROUNDS IN TOTO AND THEY REVOLVE AROUND THE IS SUE OF PENALTY OF RS. 2,81,000/ - LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE CIT (A)S DECISION IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. 2. AT THE OUTSET, DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE EXECUTED JOB WORKS FOR THE SISTER CONCERN AND RECEIVED CERTAIN RECEIPTS. AGAINST THE SAME, ASSESSEE INCURRED EXPENSES. FOR WANT OF DETAILS, AO DISALLOWED 10% OF THE CLAIM. ON APPEAL, CIT (A) RESTRICTED THE SAID DISALLOWED TO 5%. DISSATISFI ED AND AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID DECI SION OF THE CIT (A), ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. DU RING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAID DISALLOWANCE WA S RESTRICTED TO 2% OF 2 THE CLAIM WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 4,17,378/ - . THIS IS THE SUBJE CT MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE US, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE AD - HOCISM IS THE BASIS FOR DISALLOWANCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE HIS RESPONSIBILITY BY DISCLOSING ALL THE FACTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. AFTER HEARING LD COUNSEL AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORD , WE FIND, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE I S FAIR AND REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, S I N C E A D - H O C D I S A L L O W A N C E L I N K E D P E N A L T Y , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. S D / - S D / - ( PAWAN SINGH ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 29.2.2016 . . ./ OKK , 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. / GUARD FILE . 3 //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI