DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI V. WALCHAND & CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6500/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62441 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M RAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: V G GINDE
• Keywords: Tax effect

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, G, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) AND N.K. BILLIAYA (A.M ) ITA NO.6500/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) DY. C.I.T. CIRCLE 2(3), ROOM NO. 555, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. M/S WALCHAND & CO. PVT. LTD., CONSTRUCTION HOUSE,5, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD STATE, MUMBAI 01. PAN: AAACW0356J APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING :16.5 .2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :23.5.2012 REVENUE BY :SHRI M.RAJAN ASSESSEE BY :SHRI V.G. GINDE O R D E R PER DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL (JM) THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DTD. 24.06.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - 6, MUMBA I FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,77,399/- IMPOSED BY T HE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING PENALTY OF RS. 2,77,3 99/- IMPOSED U/S ITA 6500/MUM/2010 2 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LE SS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 3 LACS FIXED BY THE CBDT, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. THE LD. D.R. WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE A .O., HOWEVER, DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAID FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RIVAL PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND T HAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT IN VIEW OF THE RECENT CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 3 OF 201 1 DATED 9-2-2011 REPORTED IN (2011) 332 ITR 1 (STATUTES), THE TAX EFFECT IN T HE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMIT OF RS. 3 LA CS FIXED BY THE CBDT. 6. IN CIT VS. MADHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (BOM) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CI RCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS. 7. RECENTLY IN CIT VS. RANKA AND RANKA (2012) 206 T AXMAN 322 (KARNATAKA) THEIR LORDSHIPS AFTER CONSIDERING THE I SSUE IN DETAIL HAVE PASSED THE FOLLOWING ORDER (PAGE 341): ORDER (I) INSTRUCTION NO. 3/11 IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PENDING APPEALS. (II) AS THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT CASE IS LESS THAN RS. 10 LAKHS, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND OF MONETA RY LIMIT, WITHOUT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM, MAKING IT CLEAR THAT THE ITA 6500/MUM/2010 3 DEPARTMENT IS AT LIBERTY TO PROCEED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE IN FUTURE, IF THERE ANY AMOUNT DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE, ON SIMILAR ISSUE AND IF IT IS ABOVE THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED. 8. THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V . M/S MARK ENGINEERS (I) PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 2408/MUM/2011 DTD. 16.5.2012 F OR A.Y. 2000-01 HAS REJECTED THE REVENUES APPEAL VIDE FINDINGS RECORDE D IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER:- .. THIS BEING SO AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MA DHUKAR K. INAMDAR (HUF) (2009) 318 ITR 148 (BOM), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE REVISED MONETARY LIMIT IN THE CIRCULAR DATED MAY 15, 2008 WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS AND ALSO THE CONSISTENT VIEW OF THE CO-ORD INATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT S HOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL AND ACC ORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLIAYA) (DINESH KUMAR AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 23 RD MAY 2012 RK.: ITA 6500/MUM/2010 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT -1, MUMBAI 4. CIT(A) 2, MUMBAI 5. DR G BENCH 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI