DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI v. THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 813/MUM/2010 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 81319914 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACT4050C
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 813/MUM/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant DCIT 1(3), MUMBAI
Respondent THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 12-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 12-01-2011
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA (AM) AND SMT ASHA VIJAYAR AGHAVAN (JM) ITA NO.813/MUM/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2002-03) THE DCIT 1 (3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI-400 020 VS. THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LTD. THOMAS COOK BLDG. D.N. ROAD FORT MUMBAI-400 020 PAN- AAACT 4050C APPELLANT (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI HEMANTLAL RESPONDENT BY: MS. SAPNA VERDIA O R D E R PER ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN (JM) THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2 MUMBAI DATED 9.11.2009 FOR THE A.Y.20 02-03. 2. THE APPEAL IS AGAINST IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 99 85 482/-. THE FOLLOWING TWO ISSUES ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED: 1. CLAIM OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 88 40 553/- U/S. 80HHC O F THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT OF FOREIGN CURRENCY. 2. CLAIM OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2 31 92 548/- U/S. 80H HD ON ACCOUNT OF OPERATION AS A TRAVEL AGENT. 3. BOTH THESE ISSUES ARE RECURRING ISSUES IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING ITS CLAIM YEAR AFTER YEAR AND SO FAR THE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT HAS DECIDED BOTH THE ISSUES AGAINST THE ASSESS EE. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF PENALTY IS CONCERNED LD. REPRESENTATIVE O F THE APPELLANT COMPANY FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBSEQUE NT TO THE HEARING ITA NO. 813/M/2010 2 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND INFORMED THAT ON IDENTICA L FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY FOR EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN DE LETED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IN THIS CONNECTION THE AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAD DRAWN ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE MUMBAI ITA T IN THEIR OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 3043 AND 3044 OF 2008 FOR A.YRS. 19 94-95 & 1996-97 WHERE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE FIRST ISSUE HAS BEEN D ELETED BY HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT. THE AR FURTHER HAD DRAWN THE ATTENTIO N TO THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THEIR OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2001-02 WHERE IN THE ORDER DT. 30.3.2005 PENALTY ON THE SE COND ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS DELETED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY. 4. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS: I ALSO FIND THAT SIMILAR PENALTIES IMPOSED IN THE EARLIER YEARS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIE S AT VARIOUS STAGES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON BOTH THE ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CANCELLED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80HHC AND U/S. 80HHD IN THE RETURN OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED MER ELY ON A VIEW TAKEN BY IT WITHOUT ANY LEGAL SANCTION OR SUPPORT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THIS IS SUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 594 6/MUM/1995 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 IN REVENUES APPEAL WHEREIN THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL I BENCH HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 813/M/2010 3 THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO L EVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 1991 -92. THE PENALTY OF RS. 2 53 75 898/- WAS IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO U/S. 80HHD AND 80HHC OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO AO THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INCOR RECT PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF ITS CLAIM U/S. 80HHD AND 80HHC. 7. AFTER EXTRACTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. IT(A) THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS FOLLOWS: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN DETAILED REASONS FOR HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OF FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER THERE WAS NO CONCE ALMENT OF ANY FACTS. MERELY BECAUSE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED PENALT Y CANNOT BE LEVIED. ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A). THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE WE DISMISS REVEN UES APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JANUARY 2011 SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ( ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER MUMBAI DATED 23 RD JANUARY 2011. RJ COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CENTRAL - I CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T MUMBAI ITA NO. 813/M/2010 4 DATE INITIALS 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON: 1 . 0 2 . 201 1 SR. PS/PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR: 1 . 0 2 .201 1 ______ SR. PS/PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER: ______ JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER: ______ JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS: SR. PS/ PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON: ______ SR. PS/PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK: ______ SR. PS/PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ______ 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 10 . DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER: ______