Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Crisil Ltd , Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax on 4 March, 2010
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"I" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA no. 4420 AND 4421/Mum./2010
(A.Ys : 2001-02 and 2004-05)
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-8(1)
Room no.260A, 2nd Floor
Aayakar Bhavan, 101, M.K. Road ....................... Appellant
Mumbai 400 020
v/s
M/s. Crisil Limited
121/122, Andheri Kurla Road
Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 ................... Respondent
PAN - AAACT3151E
Revenue by : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh
Assessee by : Mr. Dhanesh Bafna
Date of Hearing - 13.09.2011 Date of Order - 23.09.2011
ORDER
PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M.
These appeals preferred by the assessee, are directed against common impugned order dated 4th March 2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)-XVI, Mumbai, for assessment years 2001-02 and 2004-05, wherein the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") imposed by the Assessing Officer was cancelled.
2 M/s. Crisil Limited ITA no.4420/M/2010 ITA no.4421/M/2010
2. After hearing the rival contentions, we find that, Mumbai "K" Bench of the Tribunal, in assessee's own case for assessment year 2001-02, in ITA no.573/Mum./2008, order dated 30th April 2010, quashed the re-assessment proceedings. As the quantum appeal has been decided in favour of the assessee on the ground of jurisdiction, the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) has not legs to stand. Thus, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) for assessment year 2001-02 and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
3. In the result, Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2001-02 is dismissed.
4. Now, coming to Revenue's appeal for assessment year 2004-05, the Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error by observing that in the quantum proceedings, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee. It is not so. The issue pertains to allowability of depreciation of goodwill. The Tribunal decided the issue against the assessee. Nevertheless, under the identical circumstances, in assessee's own case, for assessment year 2002- 03, Mumbai "K" Bench of the Tribunal in ITA no.941/Mum./2008, order dated 14th July 2009, the Tribunal, vide Para-13, observed as follows:-
"13. We have given our careful consideration to the rival contentions. Though the Tribunal has not allowed the claim of the assessee on account of depreciation on goodwill, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has considered the issue involving a substantial question of law and accordingly the appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been admitted. Once the High Court has held that substantial question of law arose against the order of the Tribunal in regard to the allowance of depreciation on goodwill, it cannot be said that the assessee had made a false claim in the return of income in regard to the same We, taking the totality of the facts and the circumstances of the case into consideration, are of the view that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the penalty even in respect of the depreciation claimed on goodwill. In our view, the entire penalty ahs rightly been deleted by the CIT(A). Finding no merit in the appeal of the Revenue, we dismiss the same."
3 M/s. Crisil Limited ITA no.4420/M/2010 ITA no.4421/M/2010
5. In view of the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for assessment year 2002-03, we uphold the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and delete the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c).
6. In the result, Revenue's appeal is dismissed.
7. To sum up, both the appeals by Revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 23rd September 2011 Sd/- Sd/-
VIJAY PAL RAO J. SUDHAKAR REDDY
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
MUMBAI, DATED: 23.9.2011
Copy to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Respondent;
(3) The CIT(A), Mumbai, concerned;
(4) The CIT, Mumbai City concerned;
(5) The DR, "I" Bench, ITAT, Mumbai.
TRUE COPY
BY ORDER
Pradeep J . Chowdhu ry ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI