sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)
 Cromption Greaves Limited vs. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Modiluft Ltd.
 Director Of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Royal Airways Ltd.
 Lally Motors India (P.) Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Amritsar)
  Mehsana District Co-operative vs. DCIT (Gujarat High Court)

M/s. Multiconsult Pvt. Ltd. 303/304, Indradarshan Bldg.No.18 Next to tarapore Garden Andheri(W) Mumbai-400 053. Vs. Income tax Officer-8(2)-3 Mumbai.
October, 05th 2015
         ,      ,   
        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
        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)
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
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


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
     /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.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Achievements

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions