ACIT CIR 7(1), MUMBAI V. M/S PROCTER & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5823/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8409 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARESH G BUCH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5823/M/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-2003 ACIT, CIR-7(1), 622, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020. VS. M/S. PROCTOR & GAMBLE HOME PRODUCTS LTD., P&G PLAZA, 495, CARDINAL GRACIAS ROAD, CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 099. PAN: AAACP4643H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HARESH G. BUCH DATE OF HEARING:6.11.2012 DATE OF ORDER: 9.11.2012 O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 18.9.2008 AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)- VII, MUMBAI DATED 24.7.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002-2003. 2. IN THE APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING G ROUNDS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO NOT TO LEVY PENALTY/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 ON AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,18,607/- BEING PAYMENT OF LEG AL EXPENDITURE OF PROTECTION OF TRADE MARK EVEN THOUGH IT IS AN ADM ITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID TRADEMARK A ND THE BURDEN WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTE D BY IT WAS BONAFIDE AND ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOS ED AS REQUIRED UNDER CLAUSE B OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE IT ACT, 1961 WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. 2. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, SHRI HARESH G. BUCH, LD COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LEGAL EXPENDITURE FOR PROTECTION OF TRADE MARK. FURTHER, LD COUNSEL FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL V IDE ITA NO. 4309/MUM/2006 (AY 2002-2003) AND ITA NO.120/MUM/2009 (AY 2003-2004) A ND REFERRED TO THE CONTENTS 2 OF THE PARA 5, AND MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT RELIEF IN QUANTUM APPEALS ON THE SAME ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF LEGAL EXPENDITURE CLA IM. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ISSUE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IN THIS REGARD. LD COUNSEL MENTION ED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE WON THE APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE, THERE IS NO CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS REQUIRED TO BE DELETED AS DONE BY THE CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 24.7.2008. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE S AID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE CORRESPONDING QUANTUM APPEALS. WE FIND, THE TR IBUNAL GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AS EVIDENT FROM THE SAID ORDER. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THIS APPEAL ON PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE I N VIEW OF THE DELETION ON THE ADDITIONS IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUN DS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 9.11.2012 AT :MUMBAI OKK COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A), CONCERNED. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR C, BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. 3 // TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI