ROOPRAJ INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI v. ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1481/MUM/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 148119914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAAFR0362G
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1481/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ROOPRAJ INVESTMENTS, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CIR 12(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 20-12-2010
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 24-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL AM AND SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JM ITA NO.1481/MUM/2010 : ASST.YEAR 2006-2007 M/S.ROOPRAJ INVESTMENTS 9 MISTRY COURT DINSHAW VACHHA ROAD MUMBAI 400 020. PA NO.AAAFR0362G. VS. THE ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 12(3) MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : --- NONE --- (ADJOURNMENT LETTER REJ ECTED) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S.SRIVASTAVA O R D E R PER R.S.SYAL AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ON 18.12.2009 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. THE ONLY GROUND IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF P ENALTY OF RS.1 45 108 IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED REBATE U/ S.88E AMOUNTING TO RS.1 45 108. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE REBATE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LOSS UNDER THE HEAD `PROFITS AND GAIN OF BU SINESS OR PROFESSION ARISING FROM TAXABLE SECURITIES TRANSACTIONS. PENALTY WAS I MPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF REBATE WHICH CAME TO BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ONLY BASIS FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U /S.271(1)(C) IS THE DISALLOWANCE OF REBATE U/S.88E. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS REBATE AFTER FURNISHING COMPLETE PARTICULARS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE REBATE WAS FOUND TO BE INADMISSIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE THE INVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C) CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. RECENTLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.1481/MUM/2010 M/S.ROOPRAJ INVESTMENTS. 2 [(2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)] DEALT WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST WHICH WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSEQUENTLY PENALTY IMPOSED ON SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS HELD BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE FULLY GOV ERNED BY THE RATIO DECI DENDI IN THE AFORE-NOTED SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT. RESPECTFULLY F OLLOWING THE SAME WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) ( R.S.SYAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI : 20 TH DECEMBER 2010. DEVDAS* COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) - XXIII MUMBAI. 5. THE DR/ITAT MUMBAI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.