ASST CIT LARG TAX PAYER UNIT, MUMBAI V. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 6616/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78916 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOURYA PRATAP
• Keywords: Revised return; Reassessment proceedings

Judgement Text

, TS TSTS TS , ,, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI - J BENCH MUMBAI , , / !' !' !' !' , ! ! ! ! BEFORE S/SH. VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMB ER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. ITA NO. 6616/MUM/2012, # # # # $ $ $ $ / ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 ACIT LARGE TAX PAYER UNIT, 28 TH FLOOR, CENTRE 1, WORLD TRADE CENTRE, CUFFE PARADE, MUMBAI- 400005 VS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD. 30 FORJET STREET, MUMBAI-400036 PAN: AAACJ0866E ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& / RESPONDENT) %& ) ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MOURYA PRATAP '(%& * ) ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.P.LOHIA & NIKHIL TIWARI # # # # * ** * +, +, +, +, / DATE OF HEARING :27-05-2014 -.$ * +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :27- 05- 2014 # # # # , 1961 * ** * 254 )1( ! !! ! +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ !0 !0 !0 !0 ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) ! !' ! # ! !' ! # ! !' ! # ! !' ! # PER RAJENDRA,A.M: CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 07.08.2012 OF THE CIT(A )-24,MUMBAI,ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY ULS. 271(1)( C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 34,85, 734/-. 2.THE APPELLANT THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3.THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. IN THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL,FILED BY THE AO,HE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ACTION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)OF DELETING THE PENALTY LEV IED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCO ME ON 30/11/1995 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 38,84,65,730/-.LATER ON A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 27/03/1997 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.42,59,73,090/-.THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U /S.143(3) ON 30/03/1998 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.49,24,31,691/-.THEREAFTER, THE A SSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND IN THE REASSESSME- NT ORDER AN AMOUNT OF RS.94.20 AKHS WAS ADDED TO TH E ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE PRICE OF GOODS SOLD TO THIRD PARTI ES AND ITS SUBSIDIARY JOHNSON & JOHNSON (EXPORTS)LTD.FAA CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO.HOWEVER,HE DIRECTED THE AO TO RE- COMPUTE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM FOR THE AY.1997-98.ORDER OF THE FAA WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE TRIB UNAL RESTORED BACK THE MATTER TO HIS FILE. 2.1. AS STATED EARLIER,DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS,THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.94. 20 LAKHS.HE ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME.AFTER CONSI -DERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE,HE LEVIED PE NALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.34.85 LAKHS U/S.271(1) (C)OF THE ACT.IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,FAA DELE TED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 2 ITA NO. 6616/MUM 2012 JOHNSON & JOHNSON LTD. 2.2. BEFORE US,DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR)STATED THA T MATTER COULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR ADDITIONS MADE IN REASSESSMENT ORDER,THAT ADDITION WAS MADE O N ACCOUNT OF SALES MADE TO GROUP COMPANY (I.E.JOHNSON & JOHNSON EXPORTS LTD)AT LOWER PRICE,T HAT TRIBUNAL,VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.09.2012 (ITA7182-84/MUM/2008/AY.S.1993-94 TO 1995-96)HAD QU ASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE AO DURING THE REAS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD TO BE CANCELLED. 2.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES.WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD BY ITS ORDER OF 28.09.2012(SUPRA),HAD QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED HAS ALREADY BEEN QUASHED,SO, THERE IS NO BASE OR JUSTIFICATION OF SUSTAINING ANY PENAL TY.FAA HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON MERITS, WHEREAS TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF.CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER APPEAL AND TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ABOVE REF ERRED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE AO STANDS DISMISSED. 1+2 #3+ VF/KDKJH 4 5 * / #6 * + 78 . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH MAY,2014. !0 * -.$ ! 9 :# 27 EBZ , 2014 . * / ; SD/- SD/- ( / VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( !' / RAJENDRA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ! ! ! ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / MUMBAI, :# /DATE:27.05.2014 SK !0 !0 !0 !0 * ** * '+ '+ '+ '+ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / = > 5. DR J BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / ?/ '+# TS TSTS TS , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ / 1 (+ (+ (+ (+ '+ '+'+ '+ //TRUE COPY// !0# / BY ORDER, @ / 7 DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI