Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dnyandeo Yeshwant Shelar, Panvel vs Assessee on 27 March, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH 'D' MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
ITA Nos. 4242 & 4243/Mum/2011
Assessment Years-2002-03 & 2004-05
Mr. Dnyandeo Yeshwant Shelar, The ITO-26(2)(4),
B-6, Archana C.H.S. Ltd. Mumbai-400 002
Kopar Cross Road,
Near Sakaram Complex, Vs.
Dombivali(W)-421 202
PAN-ANJPS 8889F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by: Shri Baby Jose
Respondent by: Shri C.G.K. Nair
Date of Hearing :27.03.2012
Date of pronouncement: 3.4.2012
ORDER
PER B.R. MITTAL, JM :
These two appeals are filed by assessee for assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 against orders of Ld. CIT(A) both dt. 16th November, 2009 vide which Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed levy of penalty of Rs. 6,110/- and Rs. 24,822/- (wrongly stated in grounds of appeal Rs. 24,882/-) respectively u/s. 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act.
2. The relevant facts are that assessee is an employee of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred in short BPCL). During the course of assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer noted that assessee received lease rent of Rs. 17,362/- and maintenance charge of Rs. 7,813/- in assessment year 2002-03 and of Rs. 35,610/- towards lease rent and Rs. 7,813/- towards maintenance charges in assessment year 2004-05 from 2 ITA Nos. 4242 & 4243/M/11 BPCL. The said lease rent and maintenance charges received by assessee were not shown in the original returns filed. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings u/s. 148 of the Act and brought said amounts to tax in respective assessment years under consideration. Subsequently, he initiated penalty proceedings and levied penalty of Rs. 6,110/- for assessment year 2002-03 and of Rs. 24,822/- for assessment year 2004-05.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed levy of penalties by AO for both assessment years under consideration . Hence, assessee is in further appeals before the Tribunal.
4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of other employees of BPCL on similar facts, penalty levied by department had been deleted by Tribunal in the appeals filed on the ground that non disclosure of lease rent and maintenance charges was on account of bonafide mistake and referred earlier orders of Tribunal in the case of Ravindra Laxman Sathe Vs ITO in ITA No. 2828/M/08 dt. 22.12.2009, in the case of Smt. Veronica J. Correia in ITA Nos 5986 to 5988/M/09 dt. 30.6.2010, Vikram Bhivaji Zumbre Vs ITO in ITA No. 2368/M/2010 dt. 23.12.2010 and in the case of Adrian John Augustine Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 1922 to 1925/M/10 dt. 7.1.2011. It was submitted that in the above cases, employees were of BPCL and AO levied penalties on identical facts as in the case of assessee herein and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) but Tribunal cancelled the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Ld. AR submitted that the issue is covered by earlier orders of Tribunal and therefore penalty may be cancelled.
5. The Ld. Departmental Representative, dutifully supported the orders of Ld. CIT(A) but conceded that issue is covered in favour of assessee by decision of co-ordinate Benches of ITAT Mumbai.
6. After considering submissions of Ld. Representatives of parties and the earlier orders of Tribunal (supra), we find that on identical facts and circumstances, the Co-ordinate Benches of Tribunal have taken consistent 3 ITA Nos. 4242 & 4243/M/11 view that this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Respectfully following the earlier decision of Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, Mumbai, we, in the absence of any distinguishable features brought on record by Ld. DR, vacate the orders of authorities below by cancelling the penalties levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for both assessment years under consideration.
7. In the result, both appeals of assessee for assessment years 2002-03 and 2004-05 are allowed.
Order pronounced on 3rd April, 2012
Sd/- Sd/-
(RAJENDRA SINGH) (B.R. MITTAL )
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Mumbai, Dated 3rd April, 2012
Rj
Copy to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent
3. The CIT-concerned
4. The CIT(A)-concerned
5. The DR 'D' Bench
True Copy
By Order
Asstt. Registrar, I.T.A.T, Mumbai