LATE JYOTI UMESH SHETTY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 20(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6719/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3582 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: J
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AZGHAR ZAIN

Judgement Text

, , G , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6719/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 LEGAL HEIR OF LATE JYOTI UMESH SHETTY, C/O. SANJAY C. SHAH, B-3 OM JOSHI APARTMENT LALLUBHAI PARK RD, ANDHERI (W) MUMBAI-400058 / VS. ITO WD 20(1)(3) PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI- (ASSESSEE ) (REVENUE) P.A. NO. AMQPS6247M APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY C. SHAH (AR) RESPONDENT BY SHRI AZGHAR ZAIN (DR) / DATE OF HEARING: 31/05/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 31/05/2016 / O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER): THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MUMBAI- 31 {(IN SHORT CIT(A)}, DATED 27.08.2014 PASSED AG AINST PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 24.06.2011 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09. MRS. JYOTI UMESH SHETTY 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, ARGUMENTS WERE MADE B Y SHRI SANJAY C. SHAH, (AR) ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY SHRI AZGHAR ZAIN, DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (LD. DR) ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON WHICH IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS LEVI ED HAS BEEN DELETED IN TOTO BY THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 30.10.2015 IN ITA NO.5505/MUM/2014. 3.1. PER CONTRA LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE FACTUAL SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL. 3.2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL AND FIND THAT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL THUS, AS ON DATE THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY DO NOT SURVIVE ANY MORE, AND THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO CONTINUE WITH THE PENALTY. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS DIREC TED TO BE DELETED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY , 2016. SD/- (ASHWANI TANEJA) SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA ) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 31/05/2016 CTX? P.S/. .. MRS. JYOTI UMESH SHETTY 3 #$'%&'(')% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. % &' / THE APPELLANT 2. ()&' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. * * ( % ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. * * / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. -. / (01 , * % 012 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / 34 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, ) -% ( //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI