ITO 32 (1)(1), MUMBAI V. MS ALKA NARENDRA MADHANI, MUMBAI

ITA 6806/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5446 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BRAJENDRA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A MUMBAI BEFORE : SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM ITA NO. 6806 /MUM/ 2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 ) & ITA NO. 6807 /MUM/ 2019 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 ) ITO 32(1)(1) R.NO.703, 7 TH FL OOR KAUTILAY BHAVAN BKC EAST MUMBAI - 400 051 VS. MS. ALKA NARENDRA MADHANI 403, TULSI TOOWER TPS III 51 ST ROAD BORIVALI WEST MUMBAI - 400 002 PAN/GIR NO. AJIPM9454B (APPELLANT ) .. (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SHRI BRAJENDRA KUMAR ASSESSEE BY SHRI JITENDR A SINGH DATE OF HEARING 10 / 05 /202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/05 /202 1 / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M) : TH ESE APPEAL S IN ITA NO S . 6806/MUM/2019 & 6807/MUM/2019 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 & 2011 - 12 ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 44 , MUMBAI IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 44 / ITO - 32(1)(1)/IT - 126/18 - 19 & CIT(A) - 44/ITO - 32(1)(1)/IT - 132/18 - 19 DATED 30/0 8 /201 9 (LD. CIT(A) IN SHORT) IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS ACT) ITA NO .6806 & 6807 ./MUM/ 2019 M S. ALKA NARENDRA MADHANI 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. AO HAD LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ESTIMATED ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THIS PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON AN ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE PRIMARY GROUND THAT NO PENALTY WOULD SURVIVE ON AN ESTIMATED ADDITION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE FIND AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT PE NALTY THAT IS IN DISPUTE BEFORE US, FALLS BELOW THE MONETARY LIMIT PRESCRIBED BY THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO. 17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 FOR PREFERRING APPEAL BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SAID CASES FALL WITHIN THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN PARA 10(E) OF THE SAID CIRCULAR AND ACCORDINGLY HE ARGUED THAT THE APPEALS ARE MAINTAINABLE. WE FIND THAT THE EXCEPTION PROVIDED IN PARA 10(E) OF THE CIRCULAR 17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE QUANTU M PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT PENALTY AND QUANTUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID CIRC ULAR NO.17/2019 DATED 08/08/2019 AND HOLD THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/05/2021. SD/ - ( C.N. PRASAD ) SD/ - (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 10 / 05/ 202 1 KARUNA , SR.PS ITA NO .6806 & 6807 ./MUM/ 2019 M S. ALKA NARENDRA MADHANI 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. G UARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//