Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Dilip Narayan Phatak, Pune vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH "D",MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL (AM) & SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR (JM)
I.T.A.No.1931/Mum/2010
(A.Y. 2002-03)
Shri Dilip Narayan Phatak, Income-tax Officer-26(2)(3),
C/o. Mr. D.Y.Pabndit, Advocate, Mumbai.
1187/10 Krupa,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 055. Vs.
PAN: AADPP3407D
Appellant Respondent
I.T.A.No.1932/Mum/2010
(A.Y. 2002-03)
Shri Rajesh V. Gad, Income-tax Officer-26(2)(3),
C/o. Mr. D.Y.Pabndit, Advocate, Mumbai.
1187/10 Krupa,
Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411 055. Vs.
PAN: ACQPG8914M
Appellant Respondent
Appellants by Shri Y.P. Pandit.
Respondent by Shri Jitendra Yadav.
O R D E R
PER R.S. SYAL, AM :
These two appeals by two different assessees are directed against the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A) upholding penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in relation to the asstt. year 2002-03. Since common issues are raised in both the appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
2. The appeal by Shri Dilip Phatak is time-barred by 146 days. The appeal by Shri Rajesh Gad is delayed by 20 days. The ld. A.R., common to both the assesses, explained the reasons for the delay and also filed affidavit in this 2 ITA Nos. 1931-1932/M/10 - Dilip Phatak & Anr.
regard. No serious objection was raised by the ld. DR on condonation of delay because in other cases of the same nature, the tribunal has already condoned the delays. After considering the rival submissions in the light of material before us, we condone the delay and admit these appeals for disposal on merits.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Dilip Phatak, the assessee in the present case, was working in Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. at the material time. Certain self-lease arrangement was implemented by the company pursuant to wage negotiations held by and between the company and Employees Union and lease rent was paid in lieu of HRA. The company treated the said payment as if providing rent-free accommodation and calculated the value of perquisite as per Income-tax Rules. The return was filed accordingly. However, the AO taxed the rent given by the employer as "income from house property"
but did not exclude the value of perquisite already taken into computation by the employer. Demand was raised. The assessee did not object to the assessment made and paid the taxes. Subsequently, penalty came to be imposed, which has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A) in the present appeal. The facts in the case of Shri Rajesh Gad are mutatis mutandis similar to those discussed above.
4. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is noted that the facts and circumstances of these appeals are similar to those disposed of by the Tribunal in several cases, copies of some of which, have been placed on record. One of such order in the case of Shri Adrian John Augustine vs. ITO passed by this very combination is available on record. In all such cases, the tribunal has ordered for the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)©. In the absence of any distinguishing feature having been brought to our notice 3 ITA Nos. 1931-1932/M/10 - Dilip Phatak & Anr.
by the ld. D.R., following the precedents, we overturn the impugned orders and order for the deletion of the penalty in both the cases.
5. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.
Order pronounced on the 18th day of February, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.S. SYAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: 18th February , 2011.
NG:
Copy to :
1. Assessees.
2.Department.
3 CIT(A)-XXVI,,Mumbai.
4 CIT, Mumbai City-26, Mumbai.
5.DR,"D" Bench,Mumbai.
6.Master file.
(TRUE COPY)
BY ORDER,
Asst.Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
4 ITA Nos. 1931-1932/M/10 - Dilip Phatak
& Anr.
Details Date Initials Designa
tion
1. Draft dictated on 14-02-2011 Sr.PS/
2. Draft Placed before author 14-02-2011 Sr.PS/
3. Draft proposed & placed before the Second JM/AM
Member
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/
6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS/
8. Date on which the file goes to the Head clerk
9. Date on which file goes to the AR
10. Date of dispatch of order *