TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5552/MUM/2009 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 555219914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACT2783J
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 5552/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT RG 8(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 03-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 25-11-2010
Next Hearing Date 25-11-2010
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 09-10-2009
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER. I.T.A. NO. 5552/MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. M/S TIME TECHNOPLAST LTD. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 102 TODI COMPLEX VS. RANGE-8(3) MUMBAI. 35 SAKI VIHAR ROAD ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI 400072. PAN AAACT2783J APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JOSHI. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANJEEV JAIN. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XXIX MUMBAI DATED 13-08-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 2 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 06-10-2008. THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.1 44 41 190/- WAS PAYABLE ON OR BEFORE 30-9-2008 . THE ASSESSEE PAID THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX ON 20-11-2008. AFTER PAYMENT OF THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX IN FULL A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 221(1) DATED 03-12-2008 WAS I SSUED. THEREAFTER AS NO EXPLANATION WAS RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE WAS DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND PENALTY U/S 221(1) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED. ON AP PEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE E CONOMY WAS IN TURMOIL WITH THE LIQUIDITY CRISES AT ONE OF ITS WORST EVER. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THERE WAS ACUTE LIQUIDITY CRISES AND HENCE THERE WAS SLIGHT DELAY IN PAYMENT OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FUNDS WERE STUCK AND WITHDRAWALS WERE FORBIDDEN BY THE BANKS FOR PAYING OF INCOME-TAX. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS.7 CRORES AS ADVANCE TAX IN 4 TH QUARTER OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED REASONAB LE CAUSE. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UPHELD THE ORD ER OF THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE GENERAL IN NATU RE WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE HELD THAT SELF ASSESSMENT TAX HAD TO B E PAID ON OR BEFORE 30-09-2008 WHICH IS THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN. AGG RIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPEATED THE CONTENTIONS RAI SED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JODHPUR BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BARMER TRAVELS VS. ITO 79 TTJ 989 FOR THE PROPOSITI ON THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE PAYS THE FULL TAX BEFORE THE DATE OF LEVY OF PENALTY THE N THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE AN DHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SARVARAYA TEXTILES LTD. 137 ITR 36 9 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS DISCRETIONARY. THE LEARNED DR MR. S ANJEEV JAIN ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 4. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERAT ION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND A PERUSAL OF THE PAP ERS ON RECORD AND THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE CASE LAWS CITE D WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS. 5. HERE IS THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID SEL F ASSESSMENT TAX ON 20-11- 2008 AFTER FILING THE RETURN ON 06-10-2008. EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADVANCED TAX TO THE TUNE OF RS.7 CRORES. THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS PAID MUCH BEFORE THE ISSUAL OF NOTICE U/S 221(1). THE DELAY IN OUR CONSI DERED OPINION WAS A SHORT DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED PAUCITY OF FUNDS AND FIN ANCIAL STRINGENCY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THIS IS A REASONABLE CAUSE. THE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BONAFIDE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT BE DOUBTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST FOR THE DELAYED PAYMENT. THUS WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PENALTY IN QUESTION HAS TO BE QUASHED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD DEC.. 2010. SD/- SD/- (ASHA VIJAYRAGHAVAN) (J. SUDHAK AR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. AC COUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 3 RD DEC. 2010. WAKODE 4 COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR I-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI B ENCHES M UMBAI.