SHAREPRO SERVICES, MUMBAI V. DCIT 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6822/MUM/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6355 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69C; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. AND SHRI V. DUR GA RAO, J.M. ITA NO. 6822/M/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S SHAREPRO SERVICES, APPELLANT 3 RD FLOOR, SATAM IND. ESTATE CHAKALA, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 069. (PAN AABFS3027J) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RESPONDENT AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020. APPELLANT BY : MR. KIRITH SHETH RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.K. SINGH . ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, MUMBAI, PASSED ON 25/09/2008 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS IN RESP ECT OF LEVYING PENALTY OF `. 2,68,246/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 20/03/1006 DETE RMINING TOTAL INCOME AT `. 44,50,340/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF `.36,83,920/-. ITA NO. 6822 /M/08 M/S SHAREPRO SERVICES 2 4. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING:- A) UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT ` . 79,730/- B) ADDITION OF `.2,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT RS. 2,00,000/- C) OTHER EXPENSES ` . 4,86,689/- TOTAL RS. 7,66,419/- ======= 5. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT O F THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 7,66,419/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE SAID INCOME. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVI ED BY THE AO BY PASSING EX-PARTE ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUBMIS SIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT NEITHER THERE IS ANY STATEME NT OF FACTS FILED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. ONE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE B EEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE THE AP PEAL IS DECIDED ON MERIT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO HA VE A SAY IN THE MATTER. WE, THERE, REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LA W AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESS EE SHALL COOPERATE WITH THE CIT(A) BY APPEARING WHEN THE CASE IS FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 6822 /M/08 M/S SHAREPRO SERVICES 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 26TH NOVEMBER, 2010 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, E BENCH, I.T .A.T., MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., MUMBAI. KV/GPR S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 18/11/10 SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19/11/10 SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 26.11.10 SR.P.S./P .S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER