ARTISAN,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIR 18(2), MUMBAI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई ए खंडपीठ मुंबई खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“A”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अिमत शु"ल "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amit Shukla,Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7145/Mum/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Artisan, Asstt. CIT-18(2) 340,Jaigopal Inds.Estate,B.S.Road, Mumbai. Vs. Dadar(West)-Mumbai-400 028. PAN:AAAFA 2327 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue by: Shri Rajendra kumar -DR Assessee by:Ms.Neelam Jadhav सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing :01.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार PER RAJENDRA, AM- सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging the order,dated 28.09.2012 of CIT(A)-29,Mumbai,the assessee had filed the present appeal.Assessee-firm,engaged in the business of manufacturing of Photo Albums, filed its return of income on 05.09.2007,declaring total income at Rs.18.66 lakhs.The Assessing Officer(AO)completed the assessment,u/s.143(3) of the Act, on 30.09. 2009,deter - mining the income of the assessee at Rs.20,61,550/-.

Brief Facts: 2.Effective Ground of appeal is about levy of penalty,amounting to Rs.2.75 lakhs,u/s.271(1) (c)of the Act.During the assessment proceedings,the AO made certain additions to the income of the assessee.The matter travelled up to the Tribunal and vide its order dated 24. 11. 2015 (ITA/5688/Mum/2012-AY.2007-08)the Tribunal restored back the matter to the file of the First Appellate Authority(FAA).Meanwhile the AO had initiated the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied penalty,vide his order dated 25.03. 2010. Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA,who upheld the penalty-order. 3.Before us,the Authorised Representative (AR)stated that quantum proceedings had been restored back to the file of the FAA,that penalty order was directly connected to the quantum proceedings.The Departmental Representative(DR)left the issue to the discretion of the Bench. We find that the Tribunal had sent back the matter to the FAA for fresh adjudication,while deciding the quantum appeal.Therefore,we are also remitting back the issue of levy of penalty to his file.The FAA is directed to decide the question of levy of penalty after deciding the main appeal and after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.Effective ground of appeal is decided in favour of the assessee,in part. As a result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed . फलतः िनधा"रती "ारा दािखल क" गई अपील अंशतः मंजूर क" जाती है. Order pronounced in the open court on 1st,March , 2016. 7145/Mum/12Artisan. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांक 1,माच", 2016 को क" गई । (अिमत शु"ल/ Amit Shukla) (राजे"" / RAJENDRA) "याियक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER सद"य मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांकDated :01.03.2016. Jv.Sr.PS. आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश आदेश क" क" "ितिलिप "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत अ"ेिषत 1.Appellant /अपीलाथ"