Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle-2(1), Pune V. Sanjay Shah, Pune

MA 312/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves seven miscellaneous applications filed by the Revenue against various assessees, including Sanjay Shah, Rahul Shah, Danish Shah, Sapna R. Shah, Jital Shah, and Sanghar Ceramics, concerning the assessment years 2010-11 and 2012-13. The applications sought to recall or rectify a tribunal order that had previously allowed the assessees' appeals, thereby reversing the penalties imposed by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue contended that the tribunal had erred in not considering the penalties under both limbs of section 271(1)(c). However, the tribunal, referencing decisions from the Supreme Court, maintained that its role in rectification under section 254(2) is limited to correcting apparent mistakes and does not extend to re-evaluating the merits of the case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 138045 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2020
• Other Referred Cases: ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC), CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION S REJECTED

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. No M.A.No. Name of Appellant Name of Respondent A.Y. 1. 312/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 913/PUN./2018 Sanjay Shah, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN AIDPS7854F The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Pune. 2012-13. 2. 314/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 915/PUN./2018 Rahul Shah, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN APTPS8958R 2012-13 3. 315/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 917/PUN./2018 Danish Shah, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN ACRPS4669L 2012-13 4. 316/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 914/PUN./2018 Sapna R. Shah, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN AZQPS4255G 2012-13 5. 317/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 916/PUN./2018 Jital Shah 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN AKIPS4551Q 2012-13 6. 298/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 912/PUN./2018 Sanghar Ceramics, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN ABBFS5768D 2010-11 7. 313/PUN./2022 in ITA.No. 911/PUN./2018 Sanghar Ceramics, 732/A, Leela Chambers, Opp. Pushpa Heights, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411 037 PAN ABBFS5768D 2009-10 For Applicant/Respondent/Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani For Appellant/Assessee : Adjournment Application(s) Rejected. Date of Hearing : 20.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.10.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These Revenue’s seven miscellaneous applications M.A.Nos.312, 314 to 317/PUN./2022 and M.A.No.298/PUN./ 2 M.A.Nos.312 to 317/PUN./2022 & 298/PUN./2022 2022 and M.A.No.313/PUN./2022 seek to rectify/recall the tribunal’s common order dated 19.07.2019, allowing the assessees’ above corresponding main appeals, respectively, thereby reversing the learned lower authorities action imposing sec.271(1)(c) penalties involving varying sums. Heard the Revenue at length. Case files perused. 2. Learned DR stated at the outset that this tribunal has deleted the impugned penalty(ies) by holding that although the Assessing Officer had initiated sec.271(1)(c) proceedings alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars, but in his respective penalty orders, he has also concluded that it is an instance of both furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as well as concealment of particulars of such income. Mr. Jasnani vehemently argued therefore that we ought to recall/rectify our order and decide the issue in all these appeals on merits as the Assessing Officer had initiated all these penalties in the above former limb followed by the penalty order(s) holding both limbs as applicable. 3. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. This is for the precise reason that the tribunal has already taken note of the Assessing Officer’s failure in not imposing the impugned penalty(ies) qua the former limb only in above terms which does not amount to an apparent mistake on record in light of hon’ble apex court’s 3 M.A.Nos.312 to 317/PUN./2022 & 298/PUN./2022 landmark decision in the case of ACIT vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd., [2008] 305 ITR 227 (SC); CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., [2021] 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC); that the purpose of sec.254(2) rectification proceedings is only to correct an apparent mistake than taking recourse to roving enquiries. Rejected accordingly. 4. These Revenue’s miscellaneous applications are accordingly dismissed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.10.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [GD PADMAHSHALI] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 20 th October, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The applicant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned. 5. D.R. ITAT – ‘B’ Bench, Pune. 6. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.