BHANSALI & CO., MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT RG 16(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6586/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 658619914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE S/SHRI I.P. BANSAL, (JM) AND B.R.BASKARAN (AM) . . , . . , ./ I.T.A. NO.6586/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S BHANSALI AND CO., EE-7010, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 16(3), ROOM NO.206, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400007 ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT) ./ !' ./PAN/GIR NO. :AACFB8643C # / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI APURVA SHAH $ # / REVENUE BY:: SHRI VIVEK BATRA % & $ ' ( / DATE OF HEARING :6.1.2015 )* $ ' ( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :18. 2.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 25.9.2012 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A)-27, MUMBAI CONFIR MING THE PENALTY OF RS.16,09,200/- LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271 ( 1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE AC T. THE LD. COUNSEL ITA NO.6586/M/12 2 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DISALLOW ANCE BY FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL, VIDE IT S ORDER DATED 19.12.2019 PASSED IN ASSESSEES QUANTUM APPEAL BEAR ING ITA NO.2282/MUM/2010 (AY-2005-06), HAS SET ASIDE THE MA TTER RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE SAME AFRESH. ACCORDINGLY , THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DOES NOT SURVIVE IN THE EYES OF LAW IN VIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUA NTUM PROCEEDINGS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD D.R AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNA L IN QUANTUM APPEAL AND WE NOTICE FROM THAT ORDER THAT THE ADDITION MAD E U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. WE H AVE ALREADY NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ADDITION ONLY, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. HENCE WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LD A.R. HOWEVE R, THE AO MAY CONSIDER ABOUT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, IF HE CONSIDERS IT TO BE NECESSARY TO DO SO. ITA NO.6586/M/12 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEB, 2015. )* % + , -18TH FEB, 2015 * $ 2& 3 SD SD ( . . /I.P. BANSAL ) ( . . ,/ B.R. BASKARAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % & MUMBAI: 18TH FEB,2015. . . ./ SRL , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % 6' ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED 4. % 6' / CIT CONCERNED 5. 6. 78 2 '9 , ( 9 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI CONCERNED 2 : ; & / GUARD FILE. < % / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY = ! (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ( 9 , % & /ITAT, MUMBAI