DHARMESH D SABHARWAL, MUMBAI v. ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1890/MUM/2009 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189019914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAGPD9016M
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 1890/MUM/2009
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant DHARMESH D SABHARWAL, MUMBAI
Respondent ACIT CIR 11(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 12-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 12-02-2010
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 25-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI A.L.GEHLOT AM & SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI JM I.T.A.NO.1890/MUM/2009 - A.Y 2001-02 DHARMESH D. SABHARWAL SHIV SMRITI 32 UNION PARK KHAR MUMBAI 400 052 PAN NO.AAGPD 9016 M VS. ASST. C.I.T. CIRCLE 11(1) MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VINAY SETHY C.A REVENUE BY : SHRI DURGESH SUMROTT DR O R D E R PER P.MADHAVI DEVI JM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST CI T(A)S ORDER DATED 23/01/2009. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.10 53 000/-. 3. THE REGISTRY HAS PUT AN OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID LESS FEE OF RS.9500/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PATNA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF DR.AJITH KUMAR PANDEY VS. ITAT REPORTED IN 310 ITR 195 IN THE CASE OF PENALTY THE APPEAL FEE PAYABLE IS OF RS.500 ONLY . IN SUPPORT THEREOF HE HAS FILED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE SAID ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE SAME WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE APPEAL FEE HAS RIGHTLY BE EN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.500/-. THIS OBJECTION OF THE REGISTR Y IS OVER-RULED. 4. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO FILED HIS RE TURN OF INCOME 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.43 15 480 FOR THE RELE VANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS ACCOUNTS ON CASH BASIS AND DURING THE YEAR HE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS AS ADVANC E FROM CINEYUG WHICH HE HAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE AO DISAL LOWED THE SAME AND THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON APPEAL THE ITAT INITIALLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND AFTER RECALL OF THE ORDER IN M.A.NO.422/M/09 THE APPEAL WAS AGAIN HEARD AND THE ADDITION WAS DELETED AFTER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED RS.15 LAKHS FROM CINEYUG AS AN ADVANCE FOR DIRECTING A FILM AND THIS AMOUNT HAS ALSO BEEN REFUNDED AS THE FILM WAS NEVER DIRECTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. MEANWHILE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEV IED THE PENALTY @ 200% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE CIT(A) CON FIRMED THE PENALTY AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER IN I.T.A.NO.9207/MUM/2004 DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 09 DELETING THE ADDITION. AS THE QUANTUM ADDITION ITSELF HAS BEEN D ELETED THE PENALTY ORDER HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. SD/- SD/- (A.L.GEHLOT) (P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI: 22 ND FEBRUARY 2010. P/-* 3 COPY TO- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CITA MUMBAI. 4) CIT CITY MUMBAI 5) DR BENCH MUMBAI TRUE COPY BY ORDER DY /ASST.REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI.