CHAITRA HOLDINGS P. LTD, MUMBAI v. ACIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI

ITA 762/MUM/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 76219914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACC5710E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 762/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant CHAITRA HOLDINGS P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CIR 9(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 12-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 12-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 18-01-2010
Next Hearing Date 18-01-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 04-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 762/MUM/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) M/S. CHAITRA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. ACIT CIRCLE 9(1) A-101 VINTAGE PEARL 29TH ROAD MUMBAI TPS III BANDRA (W) MUMBAI 400050 VS. PAN - AAACC 5710 E APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI RONAK G. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SAHU O R D E R PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- IX MUMBAI DATED 20.10.2008 WITH REFERENCE TO PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. 2. THE A.O. HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY ON VARIOUS ADDITION S AND OUT OF THE AMOUNTS THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED PENALTY ON ADDITIO N TO INCOME BASED ON TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATES. THE ASSESSEE IS CONTESTING THE ABOVE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE WAS A MISMATCH BETW EEN TDS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY TLG INDIA LTD. [EARLIER KNOWN AS CHAITTRA LEO BURNETT PVT. LTD. (CLBL)]. TH E TDS CERTIFICATES SHOWED INCOME FROM TDS WAS DEDUCTED AT RS.1 05 10 000/- AN D TDS WAS RS.22 05 000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD KEPT A NOTE IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION THAT THE IT HAS DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.87 50 000/ - AND ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED PROPORTIONATE CREDIT OF RS.18 37 500/- AND THIS DIS CLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME WAS EARLIER OFFERED FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ACCORDINGLY CREDIT WAS CLAIMED ONLY FOR A LESSER AM OUNT. LATER ON IT ALSO FILED REVISED TDS CERTIFICATE CORRESPONDING TO THE INCOME DECLARED DURING THE YEAR. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTEST ED THE ADDITION THE CIT(A) HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE A.O. BY STATING AS UNDER: - ITA NO. 762/MUM/2009 M/S. CHAITRA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. 2 8. GROUND NO. 8 RELATES TO ADDITION TO INCOME BAS ED ON TAX DEDUCTION CERTIFICATE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT IS A CO MPANY FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAS ACCOUNTED I NCOME AND EXPENSES ACCORDINGLY. THE COMMISSION INCOME IS ACCO UNTED FOR AS PER AGREEMENT WITH CLBL ON ACCRUED BASIS. HOWEVER TDS CERTIFICATES ARE NOT ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT ACCORDING TO INCOME ACC OUNTED BY IT BY CLBL. HENCE THERE IS MIS-MATCH BETWEEN INCOME ACCOUNTED A ND THE INCOME REFLECTED BY THE CERTIFICATES OF DEDUCTION OF TAX I SSUED TO THE APPELLANT. 8.2 THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS CON TENTION SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS. GROUND OF APPEAL IS PART LY ALLOWED. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT T HEY HAVE GIVEN PROPER RECONCILIATION AND THE A.O. HAS NOT PASSED C ONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AND ACCORDINGLY HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THIS ISSUE IS AL SO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO CONSIDER IT AFRESH. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. HAS NO OBJECTION. 5. EVEN THOUGH THE A.O. HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.17 50 000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE IN COME SHOWN IN THE TDS INCOME OFFERED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I N THIS YEAR THE MATTER IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE A.O. AT PRESENT CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 11 DATED 03.10.2006. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS OFFERED IN EARLIER YEARS AND RECONCILIAT ION STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THE A.O. BUT NO ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED. SINCE THE RECONCILIATION OF THE AMOUNTS ARE STILL PENDING WITH THE A.O. IT IS LITTL E PRE-MATURE TO CONSIDER THE SAME AMOUNT FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF THIS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF PENALTY IN THIS ISSUE I S SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO CONSIDER I T AFRESH AFTER GIVING FINDING ABOUT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 12 TH FEBRUARY 2010