MARIDDHI TRADING AND PROPERTIES P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 1(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7272/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83493 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUM BAI . . , , BEFORE SHRI I. P. BANSAL, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA , AM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7272/MUM/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) MARIDDHI TRADING AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. MAFATLAL HOUSE, 5 TH FLOOR, H. T. PAREKH MARG, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI-400 020 / VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(3), MUMBAI ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AACCM 3656 P ( /APPELLANT ) : ( !' / RESPONDENT ) # $ / APPELLANT BY : NONE !' # $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIVEK BATRA % &'( # )* / DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 20.08.2014 + / O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA, A. M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHO RT) DATED 26.09.2012, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTESTING ITS ASSES SMENT U/S.221(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR (A.Y.) 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2011. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- APPELLANT, WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, DUE NOTICE THROUGH LISTING PER THE NOTICE BOARD OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY WAY OF POSTING THROUGH NET, I.E., SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL POSTING 2 ITA NO. 7272/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) MARIDDHI TRADING AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO THROUGH PERSONAL SERVICE ALONG WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGM ENT OF THE APPEAL MEMO, HAVING BEEN MADE, WE CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN PU T TO SUFFICIENT NOTICE AND, ACCORDINGLY, PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER H EARING THE PARTY BEFORE US. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS THE MAINTAINABI LITY OF THE PENALTY U/S. 221(1) OF THE ACT, CONFIRMED IN THE SUM OF RS.5 LACS BY THE LD. C IT(A) FOR THE DEFAULT OF NON-PAYMENT OF THE SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.30.64 LACS. 4. THE FACTS ARE SIMPLE AND, INASMUCH AS THEY ARE U NCHALLENGED, UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN FOR THE YEAR BELATEDLY ON 28.03.2009 AS AGAINST THE DUE DATE OF 30.11.2007 . EVEN SO, THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE PAYM ENT OF SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX, DETERMINED AT RS.30,63,640/-. THE SAID PAYMENT WAS FINALLY MADE AS UNDER: ON 04.04.2011 RS.5 LACS ON 18.05.2011 RS.25,63,600/- THE DEFAULT IS THUS ADMITTED, SO THAT THE ONLY QUES TION BEFORE US IS IF THE ASSESSEE HAD GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON/S FOR THE DELAY IN PAYME NT OF THE ADMITTED TAX. WHILE THE ASSESSEE PLEADED FINANCIAL HARDSHIP AS THE REASON F OR THE DELAY IN THE PAYMENT, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AND SUSTAINED ON THE GROUND THAT TH E DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL; THE ASSESSEE HAVING IN FACT DIVERTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S.338.16 LACS RECEIVED ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY, PROFIT ON WHICH LED TO THE TAX LIABILITY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, TO SISTER CONCERNS BY WAY OF INTEREST-FREE LOANS, IN COMPLETE DISREGARD O F ITS STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, HOWEVER, RESTRICTED THE PENALTY OF RS.5 LACS, I.E., AS AGAINST RS.10 LACS IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.). IN FACT, T HE TRIBUNAL, ON SO FINDING, I.E., DEPLOYMENT OF FUNDS WITH SISTER CONCERNS RATHER THA N PAYMENT OF STATUTORY DUES, INFERRED WILLFUL DEFAULT, AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY AS SUSTA INED, I.E., IN DECIDING THE REVENUES APPEAL (IN ITA NO. 6964/MUM(B)/2012 DATED 22.07.201 4) IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WHICH CAME TO BE HEARD BY IT WITHOUT NOTICE O F THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE SEE NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW; THE ORDER BY THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BEING OTHERWISE REASONABLE, AS WAS FOUND BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIR ST INSTANCE. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3 ITA NO. 7272/MUM/2012 (A.Y. 2007-08) MARIDDHI TRADING AND PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ,-). &/0,) # , # ) 12 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON AUGUST 06, 20 14 AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (I. P. BANSAL) (SANJAY ARORA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % ( MUMBAI; 3& DATED : 20.08.2014 '.&../ ROSHANI , SR. PS ! ' #$%& ' &$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % 4) ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % 4) / CIT - CONCERNED 5. 7'89 !)&:/ , * :/- , % ( / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 9;0 <( / GUARD FILE ! ( / BY ORDER, )/(* + (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % ( / ITAT, MUMBAI