MAHTANI CHITOSAN P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8625/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2811 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPAMA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSH BUTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.8625/M/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 2002 ) M/S. MAHTANI CHITOSAN PVT LTD., 203, DALAMAL CHAMBERS, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI 020. / VS. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACM5683L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARSH BUTA, AR / RESPONDENT BY : MISS ANUPAMA SINGH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.12.2011 IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 2 , MUMBAI DATED 2.11.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 2002 . IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN TOTO. THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS CIT (A)S DECISION IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A O U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEN IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED WHETHER THE PENALTY IS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 2. BEFORE US , AT THE OUTSET, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE BAC KGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE AND BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT DATED 19.3.2004 AND MENTIONED THAT THE AO DID NOT TICKED ANY OF THE COLUMNS PROVIDED ON PAGE OF THE SAID NOTICE. HE REASONED THAT THE AO HAS AMBIGUITY ON THE APPLICABLE LIMB IE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 3. FURTHER, BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 23.1.2009 , LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READ OUT THE OPERATIONAL PARA 5 WHICH READ S AS UNDER: - 2 5................THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS RELATED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. THEREFORE, IT IS CON FIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME........ 4 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDE RS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND, THERE IS NO CLARITY IN THE MINDS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WHETHER THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KARN.). FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS, WE FIND, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A ) IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H SEPTEMBER , 2016. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30 .9 .2016 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI