Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Jigna A Kariya, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 3 May, 2013
धकरण, मंुबई यायपीठ 'जे', मंुबई ।
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES "J", MUMBAI सव ी आर.एस. याल, लेखा सद य एवं संजय गग, या यक सद य, के सम ।
Before Shri R.S.Syal, AM and Shri Sanjay Garg, JM ITA No.442/Mum/2012 : Asst.Year 2005-2006 The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax Mrs.Jigna A.Kariya Central Circle 12 बनाम/ A-402, Jay Apartment, Nehru Road Mumbai. Sancatruz (East), Mumbai - 400 055.
Vs. PAN : AADPK4913D.
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से /Appellant by : Shri Sanjay Agrawal यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri B.V. Jhaveri & Ms.Manju Sisodia सनवाई ु क तार ख / घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 30.04.2013 Date of Pronouncement : 03.05.2013 आदे श / O R D E R Per R.S.Syal ( AM) :
This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 10.10.2011 against the deletion of penalty of `6,27,507 imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in relation to the assessment year 2005-2006.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee showed certain income from transfer of shares. The Assessing Officer, on detailed examination, held the transaction of purchase and sale of shares to be bogus. Accordingly, the said income was assessed as undisclosed income arising from other sources. It is against this 2 ITA No.442/Mum/2012. Mrs.Jigna A.Kariya.
action of the AO that the present penalty was imposed, which came to be deleted in the first appeal.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material in record. It is noticed that eventually when the quantum proceedings came up before the Tribunal for adjudication, it held the transaction of sale and purchase of shares as genuine and directed to consider such declared income under the head `Capital gains'. A copy of the tribunal order dated 30.12.2011 in ITA No.791/Mum/2010 in quantum proceedings has been placed on record. The ld. DR failed to show that this order has been reversed or modified in any manner in further proceedings. As the very basis of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) ceases to exist in view of the Tribunal order, we are of the considered opinion that the action of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the present penalty can not be interfered with. The same is accordingly upheld.
4. प रणामतः अपील खा रज क जाती है । In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced on this 03rd day of May, 2013.
आदे श क घोषणा दनांकः को क गई ।
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay Garg) (R.S.Syal)
या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
मंुबई Mumbai; दनांक Dated : 03rd May, 2013.
Devdas*
3 ITA No.442/Mum/2012.
Mrs.Jigna A.Kariya.
आदे श क त ल प अ े षत/Copy
षत of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.
4. आयकर आयु / CIT(A)-37, Mumbai
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, मंुबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
ु / BY ORDER,
आदे शानसार
स या पत त //True Copy//
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.
उप/ Registrar)
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
धकरण, मंुबई / ITAT, Mumbai