P. SUBRAMANIAN, NAVI MUMBAI V. ASST. CIT CIR 23(3), MUMBAI

ITSSA 41/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7601 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C TEJPALCIT

Judgement Text

ITSSA NO.41 OF 2010 P SUBRAMANIAM, MUMBAI PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 41/MUM/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD: 1991-92 TO 2000-01) SHRI P. SUBRAMANIAN ACIT, CIRCLE-23(3) A-301 PLOT NO.61 MUMBAI JANKI APARTMENTS,3 RD FLOOR SECTOR-17,VASHI, NAVI MUMABI 400075 VS PAN AAQPS 0321 J APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUBHASH S. SHETTY RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.C. TEJPAL,(CIT) DR DATE OF HEARING: 14/03/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21/03/2012 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE CIT (A)-XXIII, MUMBAI DATED 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2003. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) AND REQUESTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROSECU TE THE APPEAL. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION TO REMIT THE ISSUE BAC K TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD , GONE TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS ISSUED A NOTICE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSEE I .E. ESKAY ENGINEERS AT B-12/1 VEENA NAGAR-3, MULUND (W) MUMBA I. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE TURNED UN-SERVED ITSSA NO.41 OF 2010 P SUBRAMANIAM, MUMBAI PAGE 2 OF 2 WITH THE REMARK LEFT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OF FICER PASSED EX- PARTE PENALTY ORDER. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BE FORE THE CIT (A) BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED A PENALTY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE H AD NO EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNT ROSE IN RESPECT OF VALUATION DONE BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICE R AND THE DECLARATION BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING VALUE OF PORT AL. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE AN EX PLANATION BECAUSE THE PENALTY ORDER WAS DECIDED EX-PARTE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK T O THE FILE OF THE AO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND DIRECT THE AO TO DEC IDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.34. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA SINGH ) (V.DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 21 ST MARCH, 2012. VNODAN/SPS COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. THE DR, C BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI