Lubricare P Ltd., , Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -14, Pune

ITA 7/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 04.05.2022, which had quashed the penalty proceedings against M/s. Jaihind Automation P. Ltd. for the assessment year 2009-2010. The Revenue contended that the Tribunal's earlier decision did not consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mak Data 356 ITR 593 (SC), which they believed was pertinent. However, the Tribunal reaffirmed its decision by relying on the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT, emphasizing the procedural error by the Assessing Officer in not specifying the exact nature of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137034 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Mak Data vs. CIT, Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA TIWARI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.No.07/PUN./2023 Arising out of I.T.A.No.1052/PUN./2017 - Assessment Year 2009-2010 The DCIT, Circle-9, Pune. vs. M/s. Jaihind Automation P. Ltd., Plot No.31, Goodwill CHS Aundh, Pune – 411 007 PAN AABCJ6925B (Applicant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde For Assessee : Shri Jitendra Tiwari Date of Hearing : 02.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.06.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This Revenue’s miscellaneous application M.A.No.7/PUN./2023 filed in assessee’s main appeal ITA.No.1052/PUN./2017 seeks to recall/rectify our order dated 04.05.2022 quashing the impugned penalty proceedings itself u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") on account of Assessing Officer’s failure in specifying the corresponding limb as to whether this taxpayer had concealed or furnished inaccurate particulars of it’s taxable income. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2 M.A.No.07/PUN./2023 2. Mr. Murkunde vehemently argued in light of the Revenue’s pleadings that our order dated 04.05.2022 deserve to be recalled once we have not considered hon’ble apex court’s landmark judgment in Mak Data 356 ITR 593 (SC). The fact remains that we have relied on hon’ble jurisdictional high court’s Full Bench decision in Mohd. Farhan A Shaikh vs. ACIT 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) (FB) holding that such failure at the Assessing Officer’s behest in initiating the impugned penalties is very much fatal to validity thereof. We thus see no apparent mistake in our impugned order. The Revenue fails in it’s instant miscellaneous application. Rejected accordingly. 3. This Revenue’s miscellaneous application is dismissed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02.06.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 02 nd June, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A)-6, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT-5, Pune. 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “A” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.