INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE26(2) (5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI V. SHRI RAJKUMAR NAIR , MUMBAI

MA 145/MUM/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0205 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

MA No 145/Mum/2022 In MA No.5963/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI 'D' BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President), and Amit Shukla (Judicial Member)] MA No 145/Mum/2022 In MA No.5963/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 26 (2) (5) Mumbai. ....................... Appellant Vs. Rajkumar Nair .................... Respondent D-603, 6 th Floor, Prashant Apartment, Opp. IIT Main Gate, Powai, Mumbai-400076 [PAN: ADBPN6080F] Appearances: Chetan M Kacha for the appellant Devdatta Mainkar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 30.09.2022 Date of pronouncement the order : 19.10.2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP: 1. By way of this application, the Assessing Officer points out a mistake apparent on record in our order dated 30 th June 2021 inasmuch as while, vide the said order, the penalty of Rs. 1,70,025/- is deleted by the Tribunal under the misconception that the said penalty is on account of quantum disallowance of purchases @ 25% on estimated basis, the actual imposition of penalty is unexplained difference of Rs. 5,00,220/- in income tax return filed in response to notice under section 147 vis-a-vis the original income tax return. 2. Heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3. The plea of the applicant Assessing Officer is indeed correct. The relief granted by the Tribunal is on the misconception that the impugned concealment penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in respect of disallowance of purchases on estimated basis. That presumption is admittedly an inadvertent mistake and completely in correct, and learned counsel MA No 145/Mum/2022 In MA No.5963/Mum/2019 Assessment year: 2009-10 Page 2 of 2 for the assessee does not dispute that position either. In this view of the matter, clearly there is a glaring mistake apparent on record in our order dated 30 th June 2021. 4. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to recall our order dated 30 th June 2021 for fresh adjudication after giving a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, an accordance with the law, and by way of a speaking order. We order so. We further direct the registry to fix the case for adjudication de novo on 29.11.2022. 5. In the result, the miscellaneous application is allowed. Pronounced in the open court today on the 19 th October, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- Amit Shukla Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Mumbai, dated the 19 th day of October 2022. Copies to: (1) The Appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order True Copy Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Mumbai benches, Mumbai