KARAKAL VARKY VARGHESE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE 30(2)(1), BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Karakal Varky Varghese, Shed No. 5, Patherwadi Road, Near Vishwakarma Garden, Marve Road, Malad (West), Mumbai – 400095 [PAN : AAAPV7565R] …………… Appellant Income Tax Officer, Vs Ward - 30(2)(1), Mumbai, BKC, Mumbai ……………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Vimal Punmiya For the Respondent/Department : Shri P.D. Chogule Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.10.2023 Pronouncement of order : 19.10.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 31/03/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2009-10, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order dated 28/03/2016, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) levying the penalty of INR 6,76,575/-.

The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal: 2. "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” When the appeal was taken up for hearing, the Ld. counsel for the 3. Assessee, at the outset, invited our attention to page No. 109 to 123 of the paper-book and submitted that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order dated 28/03/2016, levying penalty of INR 6,76,575/- was allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 41, Mumbai vide order, dated 31/11/2018. Therefore, the subsequent order, dated 31/05/2023, passed by the CIT(A) dismissing the same appeal of the Assessee is liable to be set aside.

On perusal of the common order, dated 31/11/2018, passed by the 4. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai disposing appeal No. CIT(A)-41/IT-48/16-17 pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 and CIT(A)-41/IT-50/16-17 pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11, we find that the appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 28/03/2016, pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 has been allowed in favour of the Assessee.

Further, on examining the order impugned by way of present appeal, 5. we find that the CIT(A) has made reference to the same appeal preferred by the Assessee against the penalty order, dated 28/03/2016, in the first paragraph of the order impugned which reads as under: “This appeal is preferred against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed U/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act, 1961 by the ITO, Ward-30(2)(1), Mumbai, for the A.Y. 2009-10. The appeal in this case has been filed on 22.04.2016, after service notice of demand dated 01.04.2016 as mentioned in form no.