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
From the Courts »
 Pooja Ajmani vs. ITO (ITAT Delhi)
 DCIT vs. Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
 ITO vs. M/s Shanti Constructions (ITAT Agra)
 CIT vs. Reliance Infocomm Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 M/s OCL India Ltd 17th Floor, Narain Manzil 23, Barakhamba Road New Delhi Vs. The DCIT Circle – 19(1), New Delhi
 Smt. Shanti Devi, W/o Shri Mool Chand, C/o Shri Mahavir Singh, Advocate 1078, Sector 15, Part 2, vs. ITO, Ward 2, Rewari.
 Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd [Earlier known as North Delhi Power Ltd NDPL House, Hudson Line, Kingsway Camp, New Delhi Vs. The Addl. C.I.T Range – 13, New Delhi
 Shadab, D-132, Shyam Park Extension, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad
 ACIT (International Taxation) Circle- 2(2)(2), E- 2 Block, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi vs. National Petroleum Construction Company C/o. M/s. Nangia & Co., Suite 4A, Plaza, M6, Jasola New Delhi, Pin: 110025
 Om Welfare and Educational Trust 2nd Floor, City Hospital, Azad Nagar, Hisar, Haryana vs. CIT(E) Sector- 17- E, Chandigarh
 Dalmia Finance Ltd. C/o. Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co. Chartered Accountants, D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi-110095 vs. Addl. CIT Special Range-3 New Delhi

Nandkumar Damodar Kale 8, Nandadeep, Kailashpuri, Upper Govind Nagar, Malad (East), Mumbai- 400 097 Vs. ACIT. CC. 32 Mumbai
June, 20th 2014
                       MUMBAI BENCH "B", MUMBAI

                        ITA Nos. 1003 to 1008/Mum/2012
                     Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08
         Nandkumar Damodar Kale              ACIT. CC. 32
         8, Nandadeep, Kailashpuri,      Vs. Mumbai
         Upper Govind Nagar, Malad
         (East), Mumbai- 400 097
                (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

                   Permanent Account No. :-AAGPK 6466 Q

                          Appellant by        Shri R.C. Jain & Sandeep
                        Respondent by     :   Shri Sambit Mishra

                      Date of hearing  : 18.06.2014
                 Date of Pronouncement : 18.06.2014



      These six appeals filed by the Assessee are directed against the order of the
Ld.CIT-37, Mumbai dated 02.01.2011 confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s
271(1)(b) of the Act for the Assessment Years from 2002-03 to 2007-08. As the
grounds of appeal for all these assessment years are identical, all the appeals are
heard together and disposed off by this common order.

2.    Briefly stated, during the assessment years under consideration, the AO levied
penalties of Rs.10,000/- for each default for each assessment year u/s 271(1)(b) for
the reason that the assessee had failed to comply with notices issued by the AO u/s
143(2) and u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act. The year wise details as to the date of
notices and the penalty levied are extracted hereunder:-
                                                                             ITA Nos. 1003 to 1008/Mum/2012
                                              2                                     Nandkumar Damodar Kale
                                                                       Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08

     S.        A.Y.    Notices u/s 143(2)   Final opportunity          Penalty levied
     No.                & 142(1) issued     given on the date
     1       2002-03       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices
     2       2003-04       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices
     3       2004-05       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices
     4       2005-06       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices
     5       2006-07       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices
     6       2007-08       08.12.09               24.06.10      Rs.20,000/- For both notices

On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied by the AO. Aggrieved by the
impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.       Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is noted
that there has been search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act in
the case of the assessee and its group and the assessment for seven years in the
cases of the group have been completed in ex-parte u/s 144 read with section 153A.
In this connection, it has been brought on record that similar penalty levied in other
group cases have been deleted by the Tribunal.               The copy of the order of the
Tribunal in the cases of Mr. Sameer Nand Kumar Kale and Ms. Sonia Sameer Kale in
ITA Nos. 1009 to 1015/Mum/2012 has been submitted in this regard. The Tribunal,
in the said cases, has accepted the contention of the assessee that the details
required for compliance in the show cause notice, having regard to Annexure-1 to
notices, is voluminous and the same can be collected and compiled only at a later
point of time. It is relevant to state that in the light of identical facts in the case in
hand, similar contentions have been submitted by the assessee before the AO which
is a matter of record. Further, it is noted that the AO has issued the notices only at
the fag end of the limitation period as the assessment was getting time barred.
Therefore, the assessee could not get sufficient time and only few days have been
                                                                      ITA Nos. 1003 to 1008/Mum/2012
                                         3                                   Nandkumar Damodar Kale
                                                                Assessment Years: 2002-03 to 2007-08

given to the assessee to comply with the notices. Considering the fact that the case
of the assessee is in the context of same facts as in the group cases decided by the
Tribunal aforementioned, we find that the explanation given by the assessee that
the assessee could not collect and compile the requisite information and details
within short period as granted in the notices is reasonable and covered under
`reasonable cause' provided in 271(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act. Hence the levy of
penalties in these cases are not warranted and accordingly deleted.

4.    In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed.

     Order pronounced in the open court on this 18th day of June 2014.

            Sd/-                                                    Sd/-
       (SANJAY ARORA)                                      (Dr. S.T.M. PAVALAN)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                     JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated:    18.06.2014.
Copy to: The Appellant
         The Respondent
         The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
         The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
         The DR "B" Bench

                                 //True Copy//

                                                     By Order

                                        Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2019 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Binarysoft Technologies - Privacy Policy

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