BANNETT COLEMAN & CO. LTD, V. DCIT 1(1),

MA 365/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5017 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2010
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RI VENTARAMAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, B, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S V MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA NO. 365 /MUM/2010 IN ITA NO. 1189/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94) M/S BENNETT COLEMAN AND CO. LTD., THE TIMES OF INDIA BLDG. DR. D N ROAD, MUMBAI-400001 PAN: AAACC4298H .APPLICANT VS DCIT 1(1), ROOM NO.579, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M K ROAD, MUMBAI-400020.. RESPONDENT APPLICANT BY : SHRI SH RI VENTARAMAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMI T KUMAR O R D E R PER VIJAY PAL RAO,JM BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS PETITION, THE ASSESSE E HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE ORDER D ATED 30.04.2010 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1189/MUM/2009. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED AR AS WELL AS THE LEAR NED DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE LEARNED AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2010. HE HAS POINTE D OUT THAT IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE LAST SENTENCE HAS WRITTEN ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE MA NO. 365 /MUM/2010 IN ITA NO. 1189/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94) 2 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THERE IS A APPARENT ERROR IN THE SENTEN CE OF SETTING ASIDE OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER BECAUSE THE RESULT OF T HE APPEAL IS IN CONFIRMATION OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AND AS SUCH T HIS MISTAKE IS REQUIRES TO BE RECTIFIED. 3. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A MISTAKE IN LAST LINE OF PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 30.04.2010. EVEN OTHER WISE THE SENTENCE OF SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS IN CONTRADICTION WITH THE REASONING OF THE ORDER. ACC ORDINGLY, THE LAST SENTENCE OF PARAGRAPH 28 MAY BE READ AS ACCOR DINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE INSTEAD OF ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. PARAGRAPH 28 OF THE ORDER MAY BE READ AS UNDER : 28. FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA), IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THE INFORMATIO N AND DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO B E INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEL D OF GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND RESULTING LEVY OF PENALTY. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT (SUPR A), WE FIND THAT, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AN D DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. MA NO. 365 /MUM/2010 IN ITA NO. 1189/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1993-94) 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.08.2010 SD SD (S V MEHROTRA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 13 TH AUGUST 2010 SRL:6810 COPY TO: 1.APPLICANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT CONCERNED 4.CIT(A)-I, MUMBAI 5.DR B BENCH BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI