Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Ginners & Pressers Ltd, Mumbai vs Assessee on 28 March, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"G" BENCH: MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.7254/Mum/2010
(Assessment year: 2003-04)
Ginners and Pressers Limited,
Orient House -5th Floor,
7, J. Tata Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai -400 020 ......... Appellant
Vs
ITO -1(1)-(4),
Aayakar Bhavan,
M.K. Road,
Mumbai -400 020 ........ Respondent
PAN: AAACG 1415 C
Appellant by: Shri Hitesh Trivedi
Respondent by: Shri A.K. Nayak
Date of Hearing: 28.03.2012
Date of Pronouncement: 21.05.2012
ORDER
PER R.S. PADVEKAR, JM:
In this appeal filed by the assessee the short controversy is whether the Ld. CIT (A) is justified in sustaining the penalty levied by the A.O. on the amount of ` 57,000/- which is claimed to have been paid towards 'retainership fees'.
2. Briefly stated the facts are as under. The assessee company is in the trading of investment and consultancy services. The return filed by the assessee declaring total income at ` 'nil' was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s.143(3). The A.O. made different disallowances. But so far as present appeal is concerned, it is limited to disallowance of the retainership fees. The A.O. has observed that the assessee could not produce any details nor offer any explanation and hence, the expenditure shown towards retainership fees of ` 57,000/- has been disallowed. It is pertinent to note that 2 ITA 7254/M/2010 Ginners and Pressers Limited even the said disallowance is also confirmed by the Tribunal also for want of supporting evidence. Initially the A.O. has levied the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act on the different additions made by the A.O. The assessee could succeed in getting other additions deleted by the Tribunal save the expenditure towards 'retainership fees' of ` 57,000/-
3. We have heard the parties and perused the records. The Ld. Counsel submits that merely because the A.O. has disallowed the expenditure for the want of evidence that cannot be the reason to levy the penalty on the said disallowance u/s.271(1)(c). He pleaded for deleting penalty sustained by the Ld. CIT (A). We have also heard the Ld. D.R. We find that the assessee could not produce any evidence to support the expenditure shown towards retainership fees claimed to have been paid of ` 57,000/-. In our opinion, merely because Tribunal has sustained the addition as the assessee could not produce the required evidence that itself cannot be the ground for sustaining the penalty. In our opinion, this is not a case where it can be said that the assessee has concealed the particular of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. As nowhere it is a case of the A.O. that the assessee's claim is a bogus claim. We find no justification to sustain the penalty levied by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A) on the amount of 'retainership fees' and we delete the same.
4. In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 21st May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (R.S. PADVEKAR)
ACCOUTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 21st May, 2012
Copy to:
1) The Appellant.
2) The Respondent.
3 ITA 7254/M/2010
Ginners and Pressers Limited
3) The CIT (A)-1, Mumbai.
4) The CIT -1, Mumbai.
5) The D.R. "G" Bench, Mumbai.
By Order
/ / True Copy / /
Asstt. Registrar
I.T.A.T., Mumbai
*Chavan