PRAMOD R. VISHWAKARMA, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 8108/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9538 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 8108/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) PRAMOD R. VISHWAKARMA, PROP. PRAMOD INTERIORS SHOP NO. 1, MAHESH CHS LTD., 5 TH ROAD, KHAR (WEST), MUMBAI 400 052 PAN AAAPV 5604 K VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, PAREL MUMBAI 400 012 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH S. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : MS. NEERAJA PRADHAN DATE OF HEARING: 15.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 O R D E R PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A) 30, MUMBAI, DATED 23.08.2010, SUSTAINING PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AT RS.21,89,234 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL, ALL CONNECTED TO THE SOLITARY ISSUE OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAVING BEING SUSTAINED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AR POINTED OUT THAT IN QU ANTUM, THE CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE PRAMOD R. VISHWAKARMA PROP. PRAMOD INTERIORS ITA NO. 8108/MUM/2011 2 CIT(A) AND DEMONSTRATED HIS INABILITY TO PROSECUTE THE APP EAL AT THE FIRST STAGE. 4. THE COORDINATE BENCH, IN ITA NO.5472/MUM/2011, SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS THE ORDER AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PROPER REP RESENTATION. THE AR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN SET ASIDE, IT WOULD BE FAIR, IF THE PENALTY ALSO BE RESTORED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITY. THE DR, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR AND WE FIND REASONABLENESS IN THE SUBMISSION THAT SINCE THE QUANTUM HAS BEEN SET ASIDE, THE PENALTY DOES NOT HAVE LEGS TO STAND ON. W E, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, FEEL THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MU ST ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), WHO SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 30/11/2012. SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH) ACCOUTANT MEMBER SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30/11/2012 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)- 22 , MUMBAI. PRAMOD R. VISHWAKARMA PROP. PRAMOD INTERIORS ITA NO. 8108/MUM/2011 3 4) THE CIT 10, MUMBAI, 5) THE D.R. C BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) COPY TO GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI RASIKA