OXFORD INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI v. ITO 1(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 8733/MUM/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 01-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 873319914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACO1032B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 8733/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant OXFORD INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 1(2)(4), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 01-10-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 26-12-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI I P BANSAL JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N K BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.8733/MUM/2011 FOR ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. OXFORD INDUSTRIES LTD. SHERBANOO 4 TH FLOOR B BLOCK M K ROAD MUMBAI- 400 020 PAN AAACO1032B VS. THE ITO 1(2)(4) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BEHARILAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T ROUMUAN PAITE DATE OF HEARING : 23.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :01.10.2013 O R D E R PER N.K.BILLAIYA (AM) : WITH THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-2 MUMBAI DATED 01.11.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE C IT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.7 74 496/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.200 8 PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AS SESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS IN IT S PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AT RS.23 24 184/- THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN T HE NATURE AND THE GENUINENESS OF THESE EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS OF RS.23 24 184/- . IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS OF RS.23 24 184/- WERE DEBITED TO TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT 2 ITA NO.8733/MUM/2011 AY:2006-07 PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT AND DIRECTIONS OF THE SPEC IAL COURT. THIS EXPLANATION DID NOT FIND FAVOUR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF DEBIT OF RS.23 24 184/-. THE EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS OF RS.23 24 184/- WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENAL PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THIS DISA LLOWANCE. DURING THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SINCE IT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT A LOSS THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS OF T HE FIRM BELIEF THAT EXPLANATION 4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CLEARLY APPLY TO TH E FATS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY AT RS.7 74 496/-. T HE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A LOAN FROM M/S. FAIRGROWTH FINA NCIAL SERVICES LTD. BUT FAILED TO RETURN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST. T HE SAID COMPANY WENT INTO LIQUIDATION AND THEREFORE UNDER THE NORMAL CIRCUMS TANCES THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED THIS AMOUNT AS ITS INCOME U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT ON THE CESSATION OF ITS TRADING LIABILITY. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO RETURN THIS AMOUNT TO THE CUSTODIAN OF M/S. FAIRGROWTH FINANCIA L SERVICES LTD. IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL COURT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT ALL THESE FACTS WERE SUPPRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND ALSO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT PA YABLE TO THE CUSTODIAN NUMBER OF INSTALLMENTS AMOUNT RETURNED TO THE CUSTODIAN I N THE FORM OF PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AND INTEREST THEREON. THE CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONF IRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. BEFORE US THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT. THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3 ITA NO.8733/MUM/2011 AY:2006-07 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER FURNISHED THE D ETAILS OF THE EXTRA ORDINARY ITEMS. THE ONLY SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AT EVERY STAGE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPELLED TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE CUSTODIAN OF M/S. FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL COURT. EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS THE NUMBER O F INSTALLMENTS AND WHETHER THE PAYMENT IS ONLY OF THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OR IT ALSO INCLUDED THE INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.23 24 184/- WITHOUT BIFURCATING IT AS TO HOW MUCH IS THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT AND HOW MUCH IS TH E INTEREST ELEMENT. THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM AND ALSO T O SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BY BRINGING COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE H AS GROSSLY FAILED ON EVERY COUNT. THEREFORE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY HESITATION IN CONFIRM ING THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 5. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (I P BANSAL) (N.K.BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DT : 1 ST OCTOBER 2013 SA COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE C.I.T MUMBAI 4. THE CIT (A)-2 MUMBAI 5. THE DR C- BENCH ITAT MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI