GALA PRECISION TECHNOLOGY P. LTD, THANE V. ACIT CIR 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6793/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8663 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMARD EEP
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPESH CHHEDA
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6793/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) GALA PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO. A-59, ROAD NO.10, MIDC, WAGLE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THANE -400 602 PAN: AAACG 1777 F VS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6(3), MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. DEEPESH CHHEDA RESPONDENT BY : MR. AMAR DEEP DATE OF HEARING: 24-09-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10-10-2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) 12, MUMBAI, DATED 29.03.2010, WHEREIN HE HAS SUSTAINED THE PEN ALTY OF RS. 10,65,021 U/S 271(1)(C), AS LEVIED BY THE AO. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE AR POINTED OUT T HAT THE COORDINATE BENCH AT MUMBAI, IN ITA NO. 1417/MUM/2008, FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAD SET ASIDE THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO, ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED AND SUSTAINED. THE AR PLACED THE COPY OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDIT IONAL DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED IN PARA 6 OF THE ORDER , THE COORDINATE BENCH GAVE A FINDING , ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE O F THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING PROPER OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. GALA PRECISION TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO. 6793/MUM/2010 2 3. SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE IN QUANTUM, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO MAKE ANY OBSERVATIONS ON THE SAME ISSUE PER TAINING TO PENALTY. 4. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES ON PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND CANCEL THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 10/10/2012. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 10/10/2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-12, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT CITY-6, MUMBAI, 5) THE D.R. G BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *CHAVAN