Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jayakara C. Shetty, Pune vs Assessee on 29 December, 2011
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH 'I' MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER &
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIALMEMBER
S.No. I.T.A.No. A.Y Appellant Respondent
1 1926-
1926-M-10 2001
2001-
01-02 Mr.Jayakara C. Shetty, The Income Tax
C/o. Mr. D.Y.Pandit
D.Y.Pandit Adv.,
Adv., Officer,
1187/10, Krupa, Ward 26 (2)(4),
Shivajinagar, Mumbai.
Pune 411 005.
PAN: AAUPS 5595 G
2 1927-
1927-M-10 2002
2002-
02-03 Mr.Jayakara C. Shetty, ITO Ward 26(2)(4),
Mumbai Mumbai.
3 1928
1928-
28-M-10 2003-
2003-04 Mr.Jayakara C. Shetty, ITO Ward 26(2)(4),
Mumbai Mumbai.
4 1929-
1929-M-10 2004
2004-
04-05 Mr.Jayakara C. Shetty, ITO Ward 26(2)(4),
Mumbai.
Appellant by : Shri Prakash Pandit.
Respondent by : Shri A.K. Nayak.
Date of Hearing: 29-12-2011.
Date of Pronouncement: 06-01-2012
ORDER
Per T.R.SOOD, AM:
All these appeals have been filed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)© amounting to Rs.12,829/-, Rs.9039/-, Rs.30,190/- and Rs.14,563/- for assessment years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 respectively.
2. The appeals have been filed late by 545, 240, 240 and 240 days for aforementioned assessment years. A condonation petition along with an affidavit has been filed. It is stated in the affidavit that assessee is working as Asst. (Canteen). It is further stated that as per a scheme of the company, after reaching an understanding with the 2 ITA NOS.1926 TO 1929 OF 2010 employees, assessee was paid a month reimbursement of self lease arrangement in pursuance to the various negotiations held by the company i.e. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and the employees' union. The company treated the said payment as perquisites for providing rent free accommodation. However, AO taxed the rent given by the employer as income from house property but did not exclude the value of the perquisites. Accordingly, AO raised a demand of Rs.5,320/- for A.Y 2001-02 and refund for the other years. Later on, penalty proceedings were also initiated u/s.271(1)©. During the meeting with the union leaders all the workers including the assessee were informed that penalty levied was not in accordance with the law. Only thereafter the appeals were filed.
3. After considering these averments in the affidavit and the submissions of both the parties, we are of the opinion that assessee had a reasonable cause for filing the appeals late and, therefore, the delay is condoned.
4. On merits, Ld. Counsel of the assessee furnished copies of various orders of the ITAT Mumbai Benches in which in identical circumstances penalty has been deleted.
5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO.
6. After considering the rival submissions, we find that penalties have been deleted by various Benches of Mumbai Tribunal in the following cases:
1. I.T.A.Nos. 5986 top 5988-Mum-09 - Smt. Veronica J. Correia. Vs. ITO.
3 ITA NOS.1926 TO 1929 OF 2010
2. I.T.A.Nos. 1922 to 1925-Mum-10 - ShriAdrian John Augustine vs. ITO.
3. I.T.A.No. 1595-Mum-10 - Shri Keshavan P. Pillay vs. ITO.
Consistent with the view taken by the ITAT Mumbai Benches in identical circumstances, we are of the opinion, that the present case is not fit for levy of penalty. Accordingly we delete the penalties.
7. In the result, assessee's appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this day of 6-1-2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(VIJAY PAL RAO) (T.R.SOOD)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Mumbai: 6-1-2012.
P/-*