9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, though there are disallowances in the course of the assessment proceedings, mere disallowance does not attract penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C). - Decided in favour of assessee - I.T.A. Nos. 1466 & 1467/Mum/2013 - - - Dated:- 26-2-2015 - H. L. Karwa (President) And N. K. Billaiya ( Accountant Member) For the Appellant : Vijay Mehta For the Respondent : Pawan Kukmar Beerla ORDER N. K. Billaiya ( Accountant Member) These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dt. 13.12.12 7.1.2013 respectively pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 2007-08. Both these appeals by the assessee have common ground, therefore, they were heard together ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 2542/M/12 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07. We find that the Tribunal had considered the following ground vide ground No. 1 in A.Y. 2006-07. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld. AO u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to ₹ 2,25,783/- on the disallowance made u/s. 94(7). The appellant prays that the same may please be deleted. 8. While deciding the appeal at para-3 of its order, the Tribunal has considered the decision in the case of City Group Global Markets India Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5352/M/09 and finally held as under: We have considered rival contentions and found that assessee is a share broker and shar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the proposition of law discussed by coordinate bench in the case of City Group Global Markets India Pvt. Ltd(supra) , we do not find any merit in the penalty so imposed by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act with respect to the disallowance made under of Section 94(7) of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of Ramesh Damani, ITA No.1625/Mum/2012 , dated 22- 8-2014. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we do not find any merit in the imposition of penalty addition made with reference to the provisions of Section 94(7). 9. Facts and issues being identical, respectfully following the decision of the Co ordinate Bench, we set aside the orders of the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
