UNI TEX PRODUCTS P.LTD MUMBAI vs DCIT 2(3) MUMBAI

आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील य अपील य अपील य अपील य अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण, मंबई मंबई मंबई मंबई ु IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES ‘F’ MUMBAI सवी आय.पी. बंसल, यायक सदय /एवं एवं एवं एवं BEFORE SHRI I.P.

BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER /AND ी डी. क णाकर रावु, लेखा सदय SHRI D.KARUNAKAR RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.6098/MUM/2011 नधारण नधारण नधारण नधारण वष वष वष वष /Assessment Year 2004-05 Uni Tex Products Pvt.

Ltd., Sapt Building, J.N.Heredia Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai - 400 001. बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम/ Vs.

The Dy.

Commissioner of Income-tax, Cir.

2(3), Room No.555, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020; थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACU0760G (अपीलाथ& /Appellant) .. ('(यथ& / Respondent) अपीलाथ& ओर से/ Appellant by: Shri Y.P.Trivedi & Ms.Usha Dalal '(यथ& क* ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Manish Kanojia सनवाई ु क* तार ख / Date of Hearing : 27/05/2013 घोषणा क* तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 27/05/2013 आदेश / O R D E R PER I.P.BANSAL, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the assessee.

It is directed against the order passed by Ld.

CIT(A)-6 Mumbai dated 22/6/2011 for assessment year 2004-05 The grounds of appeal read as under: 1.

The learned CIT ( A ) erred in confirming penalty on income of addition of Rs.

10,80,000/- levied by AO u/s.

271(1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of amenities amount, which was never received by the Appellant. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.6098/MUM/2011 नधारण नधारण नधारण नधारण वष वष वष वष /Assessment Year 2004-05 2 2.

The learned CIT ( A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant did not file any inaccurate particulars nor concealed any particulars of income in respect of the said sum of Rs.

10,80,000 /- and hence, penalty for concealment of income for the said sum was not warranted.

3.

The learned CIT ( A ) failed to appreciate that the penalty proceedings are independent proceedings than the quantum proceedings and even if the addition of Rs. ion of Rs.10,80,000/- was confirmed by CIT ( A ) would not automatically tentamount to concealment of income.

4.

The learned CIT ( A ) failed to appreciate that the Appellant contested the said addition of income of Rs.10,80,000 /- before ITAT and ITAT inadvertently omitted to give finding on the said issue though it was argued by the learned senior counsel of the Appellant that the Appellant did not receive any amount by way of rent or by way of providing amenities, and hence, no addition could have been made by relying on the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT v.

A.

Ramon & Co. reported in 67 ITR Pg.

11.

5.

The learned CIT (A ) erred in holding that since ITAT silent on the issue, penalty for concealment of issue from amenities at Rs.

10,80,000/- has to be confirmed.

2.

The concealment penalty of Rs.19,55,672/- was levied in respect of two additions totalling to Rs.54,51,352/-, out of which addition of Rs.43,71,352/- was earlier deleted by the Tribunal and to that extent the concealment penalty was deleted by Ld.

CIT(A).

As the order of Tribunal was silent on the addition of Rs.10,80,000/-, which was addition made on account of amenities, Ld.

CIT(A) has upheld the penalty.

Aggrieved assessee has filed aforementioned appeal.

At the outset it was pointed out by Ld.

AR that as Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the addition of Rs.10,80,000/- an application under section 254(2) was filed and the order was recalled for adjudication of this addition.

The Tribunal has considered the issue regarding the impugned addition vide its order dated 27/2/2013 in ITA No.2487/Mum/2009 and the impugned addition has been deleted.

Thus, it was pleaded by Ld.

AR that when addition itself has been deleted then penalty does not survive.

A copy of the said order was placed on our record and a copy was also given to Ld.

DR. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.6098/MUM/2011 नधारण नधारण नधारण नधारण वष वष वष वष /Assessment Year 2004-05 3 4.

Ld.

D.

D.R did not object to the submissions of the assessee that impugned addition has been deleted by the aforementioned order.

In this view of the situation, after hearing both the parties, as addition itself has been deleted, we see no justification in the levy of concealment penalty in respect of impugned addition of Rs.10,80,000/-.

The same is ordered to be deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27/05/2013 आदेश क* घोषणा खलेु यायालय म/ 0दनांकः 27/05/2013 को क* गई । Sd/- Sd/- (डी. क णाकर रावु / D.KARUNAKAR RAO) (आय.पी. बंसल / I.P.

BANSAL) लेखा सदय / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER यायक सदय / JUDICIAL MEMBER मंबई ु Mumbai; 0दनांक Dated 27/05/2013 आदेश आदेश आदेश आदेश क* क* क* क* 'त4ल5प 'त4ल5प 'त4ल5प 'त4ल5प अ6े5षत अ6े5षत अ6े5षत अ6े5षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ& / The Appellant 2. '(यथ& / The Respondent.

3. आयकर आय7 ु (अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय7 ु / CIT 5.

5वभागीय 'तन ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंबई ु / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानसार आदेशानसार ु / BY ORDER, स(या5पत 'त //True Copy// उप उप उप उप/सहायक सहायक सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

Registrar) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील य अपील य अपील य अपील य अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण अ धकरण, मंबई ु / ITAT, Mumbai व.न.स./Vm, Sr.

PS