Royal Enterprises, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax

सर्वश्री आय.सी.शभमव, रेखम सदस्म एवुं श्री संजम गगव, न्ममयमक सदस्म BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM आमकय अऩीर सं./ITA No.7102/Mum/2013 ( नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2008-09) DCIT-17(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s Royal Enterprises,4/98, Amrit Villa, R.A.Kidwai Road, Wadala, Mumbai-400031 स्थममी रेखम सं ./ जीआइआय सं ./ PAN/GIR No. : AAAPT 7154 J (अऩीरमथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent)

यमजस्र् की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Love Kumar यनधमवरयती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Paras S. Savla

सुनर्मई की तमयीख / Date of Hearing : 06/05/2015 घोषणम की तमयीख/Date of Pronouncement 06/05/2015

आदे श / O R D E R

PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M):

This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of CIT(A)-

19, Mumbai, dated 19-9-2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 in the

matter imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act.

2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this

case, penalty has been imposed in respect of revised claim filed by the

assessee u/s.80IB. The penalty deleted by the CIT(A) after giving detailed

finding at para 5 of his appellate order. We found that in the immediately

preceding assessment year 2007-08 penalty was imposed for reduction in

the claim u/s.80IB. The CIT(A) has deleted the penalty and the Tribunal 2 ITA No.7102/13

vide its order dated 28-8-2014 confirmed the action of CIT(A) after having

the following observations :-

"3. Having heard both the sides and perused the material on record, it is pertinent to mention that the perusal of the assessment order indicates that the AO has not pointed out any specific evidence regarding the inflation of expenses or making an inflated claim u/s 80IB. The AO entered into a scientific exercise and worked out the average cost of construction. The building nos. 8 & 9 are duplex flat building and the construction cost is higher according to the assessee and this fact has been ignored by the AO as observed by the Ld.CIT(A). It is also pertinent to mention that the AO has not brought on record any specific instances of inflation of expenses by the assessee. Also, it is observed that the assessee has filed all details before the AO and hence there is no question of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or the assessee has concealed any income. In view of that matter, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the impugned penalty levied by the AO and thus the same is upheld."

The facts and circumstances during the year under consideration are

same, wherein penalty was imposed for reduction in claim of deduction

u/s.80IB, respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own

case for immediately preceding year, we confirm the action of the CIT(A)

for deleting the penalty.

4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 06/05/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (संजम गगव) (आय.सी.शभमव) (SANJAY GARG) (R.C.SHARMA) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER भुंफई Mumbai; ददनमंक Dated 06/05/2015 प्र.कु.मभ/pkm, यन.स/ PS 3 ITA No.7102/13

आदे श की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :

1. अऩीरमथी / The Appellant

2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.

3. आमकय आमक् ु त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A), Mumbai.

4. आमकय आमुक्त / CIT आदे शािसार/ BY ORDER,

5. वर्बमगीम प्रयतयनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai

6. गमडव पमईर / Guard file.

उप/सहायक पुंजीकार सत्ममवऩत प्रयत //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai