,
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI-"B",BENCH
, ,
Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Shaktijit Dey,Judicial Member
/.ITA No.6537/Mum/2013, /Assessment Year-2007-08
M/s. Multiconsult Pvt. Ltd. Income tax Officer-8(2)-3
303/304, Indradarshan Bldg.No.18 Mumbai.
Next to tarapore Garden Vs
Andheri(W)
Mumbai-400 053.
( /Appellant) ( / Respondent)
/Assessee by :Ms. Neha Paranjpe
/ Revenue by :Dr. Santosh Mankuskar
/ Date of Hearing : 01 - 10 -2015
/ Date of Pronouncement : 01 -10-2015
, 1961 254(1)
Order u/s.254(1)of the Inco me-tax Act,1961(Act)
PER RAJENDRA, AM-
Challenging the order dated 11.09.2013 of CIT(A)-17,Mumbai,the Assessee has raised following
grounds of appeal:
"1.The ld. CIT(A) erred in confrming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.2,84,070/-
Your appellants crave leave to add, to alter or to amend any or all of the above grounds of
appeal."
Brief Facts:
2.The effective ground of appeal is about deletion of penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c)of the Act.
The assessee had filed its return of income on 27.03.2008,declaring income of Rs.4.31 lakhs.The
Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment on 24.12.2009,u/s.143(3)of the Act, enhancing
the income of the assessee by Rs.17.60 lakhs.
3.During the assessment proceedings the AO found that the assessee had changed its method of
accounting.He held that the change was not bonafide and was a colourable device to evade tax
and suppression of income of Rs.10.95 lakhs.He added the said amount to the income of the
assessee and initiated penalty proceedings against the u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.In the appellate
proceedings,the First Appellate Authority(FAA)upheld the order of the AO. After the order of
the FAA,the AO gave an opportunity to the assessee to explain as to why the penalty should not
be levied.As per the AO,the assessee did not file any explanation in that regard.Therfore,he
imposed a penalty of Rs.2.84 lakhs for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.The assessee
agitated the matter before the FAA,but he dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee and
confirmed the penalty order.In the meanwhile,the assessee challenged the order of the FAA
before the Tribunal.Vide its order,dated 21.5.2014(ITA/3517/Mum/2011),the appeal filed by the
assessee was allowed and the order of the FAA was reversed by the Tribunal.
4.Before us,the Authorised Representative(AR)argued that the Tribunal had deleted the addition
made by the AO and confirmed by the FAA.Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to
1
6537/13Multiconsult-A.Y.07-08
the discretion of the Bench.We find that the quantum addition,which was the basis for imposing
concealment penalty,has been deleted by the Tribunal.Therefore,the order of the FAA confirm -
ing the penalty imposed by the AO,amounting to Rs.2.84 lakhs would not survive.Reversing the
his order,we decide effective ground of appeal in favour of the assessee.
As a result,appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 1st October,2015.
01. 2015
Sd/- Sd/-
( / Shaktijit Dey) ( / RAJENDRA)
/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
/Mumbai, /Date: 01 .10.2015
...Jv.Sr.PS.
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1.Appellant / 2. Respondent /
3.The concerned CIT(A)/ , 4.The concerned CIT /
5.DR " B" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai / , ,.. .
6.Guard File/
//True Copy//
/ BY ORDER,
/ Dy./Asst. Registrar
, /ITAT, Mumbai.
2
|
