"C" Û
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI
. .
. . , ,
BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. : 1844/Mum/2013
(Assessment year : 2001-02)
M/s Praja Exports, Vs ITO- 19(1)(1),
7/153, Nityanand Nagar 4, Piramal Chambers,
S N Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 012
Mumbai - 400 069
.:PAN: AADFP 5244 Q
(Appellant) × (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah
Respondent by : Shri Premanand J
/Date of Hearing : 08-12-2014
/Date of Pronouncement : 23-01-2015
ORDER
, :
PER VIVEK VARMA, JM:
Instant appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of
CIT(A) 22, Mumbai, dated 22.01.2013, wherein the assessee has
challenged the levy of penalty of Rs. 1,94,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the
Act, sustained by the CIT(A).
2. The facts are that the assessee is a manufacturer and exporter
of readymade garments. The regular assessment u/s 143(3) was
framed at Rs. 18,33,317/-, wherein the AO had framed the
assessment without considering the premium on quota, for the
purposes of computation of deduction u/s 80HHC.
3. The issue was sustained by the CIT(A) and the matter reached
the ITAT. The ITAT, after hearing the appeal, set aside the issue to the
file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue as per law on the
issue of deduction u/s 80HHC in respect of export quota after
referring to the facts.
2
M/s Praja Exports,
ITA 1844/M/2013
4. In this reassessment stage, wherein the issue has been
impugned, the penalty has been levied and sustained.
5. On going through the order of penalty u/s 271(1)(c), and the
order of the ITAT in the quantum, we do not find anything to suggest
that the claim made by the assessee was mala fide. Had it been so, the
ITAT in ITA No. 41/Mum/2009 would have confirmed the
disallowance/addition & they would not have set aside the issue for a
fresh adjudication.
6. This itself is a good ground for us to delete the penalty, because
the facts, details and claim which have been made, are emerging from
the details as filed.
7. It is not the case of the department that the assessee had
claimed any deduction with a mala fide intention, and which is
otherwise not permissible. Since the ITAT itself, on facts felt that the
claim could be allowed, they set aside the issue.
8. In such a circumstance, in our opinion, the case of CIT vs
Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., reported in 322 ITR 158 (SC) is
squarely applicable.
9. We, therefore, set aside the order of the revenue authorities and
delete the penalty.
10. In the result, the appeal as filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd January, 2015.
. .
(. . ) ( )
Sd/- Sd/-
Û
(R C SHARMA) (VIVEK VARMA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 23rd January, 2015
3
M/s Praja Exports,
ITA 1844/M/2013
/Copy to:-
1) /The Appellant.
2) × /The Respondent.
3) The CIT(A) -22, Mumbai.
4) The CIT-19, Mumbai/CIT -19, Mumbai.
5) "C", , /
The D.R. "C" Bench, Mumbai.
6) [
Copy to Guard File.
/By Order
/ / True Copy / /
/
,
Dy./Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T., Mumbai
*å ..
*Chavan, Sr.PS
|
