ITO 12(3)(4), MUMBAI V. NEIL JAYANT GAJJAR, MUMBAI

ITA 6691/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8948 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PIKALE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6691/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) INCOME TAX OFFICER - 12(3)(4) SHRI NEIL JAYANT GAJJ AR ROOM NO. 123, AAYAKAR BHAVAN C/O PATHOLOGICAL LABOR ATORY M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 VS. UNION CO-OP. INSURANCE BUILDING, P.M. ROAD, MUMBAI 400001 PAN - AACPG 5889 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.K. MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.S. PIKALE DATE OF HEARING: 05.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.09.2012 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2011 PASSED BY CIT(A) -23, MUMBAI AND IT PERT AINS TO A.Y. 2005-06. 2. THE ONLY GROUND URGED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.8,76,000/- ON THE ISSUE OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01 ST APRIL, 1981 MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ITAT HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL ON THE SAID ISSUE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED NO LONGER REMAINS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DE CISION OF THE ITAT (ITA NO. 1726/MUM/2009). HAVING REGARD TO THE CIRCUMSTANCE O F THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY. MERELY BECAUS E REVENUE INTENDS TO FILE AN APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT REVENUE HAS GOT A RIGHT TO LEVY PENALTY. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL TO HOLD THAT PENALTY IS NOT IMPO SABLE, WE DO NOT FIND ITA NO. 6691/MUM/2011 SHRI NEIL JAYANT GAJJAR 2 ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARN ED CIT(A). AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2012. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 5 TH SEPTEMBER 2012 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 23, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 12, MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, B BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.