MAHTANI CHITOSAN P. LTD, MUMBAI v. DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 8625/MUM/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016

Appeal Details

RSA Number 862519914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACM5683L
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 8625/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant MAHTANI CHITOSAN P. LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 1(2), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 29-02-2016
Next Hearing Date 29-02-2016
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 21-12-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.8625/M/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 2002 ) M/S. MAHTANI CHITOSAN PVT LTD. 203 DALAMAL CHAMBERS NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI 020. / VS. DCIT 1(2) MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AAACM5683L ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI HARSH BUTA AR / RESPONDENT BY : MISS ANUPAMA SINGH DR / DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .09.2016 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.12.2011 IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 2 MUMBAI DATED 2.11.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 2002 . IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN TOTO. THE CORE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS CIT (A)S DECISION IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A O U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEN IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED WHETHER THE PENALTY IS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 2. BEFORE US AT THE OUTSET LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY NARRATED THE BAC KGROUND FACTS OF THE CASE AND BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT DATED 19.3.2004 AND MENTIONED THAT THE AO DID NOT TICKED ANY OF THE COLUMNS PROVIDED ON PAGE OF THE SAID NOTICE. HE REASONED THAT THE AO HAS AMBIGUITY ON THE APPLICABLE LIMB IE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 3. FURTHER BRINGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 23.1.2009 LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE READ OUT THE OPERATIONAL PARA 5 WHICH READ S AS UNDER: - 2 5................THEREFORE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF FACTS RELATED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. THEREFORE IT IS CON FIRMED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME........ 4 . AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDE RS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WE FIND THERE IS NO CLARITY IN THE MINDS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WHETHER THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE BINDING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 ITR 565 (KARN.). FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS WE FIND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A ) IS NOT LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 T H SEPTEMBER 2016. S D / - S D / - ( RAVISH SOOD) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 30 .9 .2016 . . ./ OKK SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI