ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS (I) LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT (1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5433/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5731 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M L PERUMAL

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./I.T.A. NO.5433/M/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999 - 2000 ) M/S. ALLIED PHOTOGRAPHICS (I) P. LTD., KASTURI BUILDING, JAMSHETJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. / VS. ACIT - 1(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 5 TH FLOOR, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AABCA 2068 A ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAYAG JHA & MR. PRATEEK JHA / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.L. PERUMAL, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 22.1.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 .1.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.7.2011 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - I, MUMBAI DATED 15.3.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,83,174/ - U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ACIT IS NOT TIME BARRED UNDER THE LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE GROUND NO.2 RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF LIMITATION OF TIME PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUTE U/S 275 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS DATED 7 TH AUGUST, 2006 (PAGE 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND THE SAME 2 WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2006. THE LETTER S DATED 4 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 OF THE DCIT (HQ) TO CIT - I, MUMBAI AND ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2013 PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. CONSIDERING THE SAME, SIX MONTHS ENDS BY THE END OF FEBRUARY, 2007. HOWEVER, LD COUNSEL BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY ORDER PA SSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS DATED 29.2.2008. THUS, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO WITH A DELAY OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF FEBRUARY, 2007. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, AS PER THE LD COUNSEL THE PENALTY IS TIME BARRED AND TH EREFORE, THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN INVALID AND REQUIRED TO BE QUASHED WITHOUT GOING TO THE MERITS OF THE PENALTY. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION TO HIM SO FAR AS THE PENDENCY OF APPEAL, IF ANY, BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T ON THIS ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE SAME, PENALTIES ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN GENERAL AND PARA 9 IN PARTICULAR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE EVENTS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD COUNSEL, WE FIND THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF TIME LIMITATION APPLIES TO THE PRESENT CASE AND THE PENALTY ORDER IS FINALIZED MUCH AFTER THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 275 OF THE ACT EXPIRES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE SAID PARA 9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, HEAVILY RELIED ON BY THE LD DR. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DOES NOT PROVIDE THE SAID DETAILS BEFORE HOLDING THAT THE ORDER IS WELL WITHIN THE TIME ERRONEOUSLY. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE DATES BEFORE COMING TO THE CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . 6. CONSIDERING THE DECISION GIVEN BY IN THE ABOVE PARAS OF THIS ORDER ON GROUND NO.2, WHICH RELATES TO THE LEGAL ISSUE, THE ADJUDICATION OF OTHER GROUNDS BECOME ACADEMIC. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS ACADEMIC. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED . 3 ORDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 1 S T JANUARY, 2014. S D / - S D / - (SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 3 1 .1.2014 . . ./ 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 . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI