Marrot Stock Holding Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

CO 197/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2733 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Tax effect

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 196 & CO 197 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM] IT (SS) A NO. 1 96 /AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 8 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 4 ( 4 ), AHMEDABAD . .... . .... ..... .. ..... APPELLANT VS. MARROT STOCK HOLDING PVT. LTD., ................... RESPONDENT AVADH 2A/1, MUNICIPAL STAFF QUARTERS, ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD 380 007. [PAN: AABCM 0570 B] C.O. NO. 197 /AHD/2014 ( IN IT (SS) A NO. 196 /AHD/201 4 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 08 - 09 MARROT STOCK HOL DING PVT. LTD., .... ................... APPELLANT AVADH 2A/1, MUNICIPAL STAFF QUARTERS, ELLIS BRIDGE, AHMEDABAD 380 007. [PAN: AABCM 0570 B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4 ), AHMEDABAD. .. ................... RESPONDENT APPEARANC ES BY JAMES KURIAN FOR THE REVENUE ASEEM L. THAKKAR FOR THE ASSESSEE HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 0 9 . 03 . 20 1 7 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 24 .03.2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: ITA NO. 196 & CO 197 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 2 OF 3 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CHALLENGED CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 2 4.02. 2014 , PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 8 - 09 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 9,57,900/ - LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE OR D ER OF THE A S SESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS THER EFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (A) MAY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS LESS THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . I N VIEW OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT AND IN THE LIGHT OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10 TH DECEMBER, 2015, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS LES S THAN RS.10,00,000/ - . 3 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED . 4. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRIEVANCE: - 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE RESPONDENT S CASE, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO.1 OF THE RESPONDENT S APPEAL BEFORE HIM AFTER OBSERVING THAT IT WAS GENERAL IN NATURE NOT REQUIRING HIS ADJUDICATION. HE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED, INTER ALIA, THAT PARAS 1.1 TO 1.3 OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ACCOMPANYING THE RESPONDEN T S APPEAL BEFORE HIM ELABORATED UPON THE APPELLANT S CHALLENGE (VIDE THAT GROUND) TO THE VALIDITY OF THE PENALTY ORDER IMPUGNED BEFORE HIM ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD BEEN PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. HE OUGHT ALSO TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT WHEN HE HAD HIMSE LF APPRECIATED THAT PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT HAD BEEN IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF AN ADDITION IN THE RESPONDENT S HANDS WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HAD NOT THROWN UP ANY EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL BY IT WAS NOT GENUINE AND REPRESENTED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED INCOME, THAT COULD NOT JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IN THE HANDS OF ITA NO. 196 & CO 197 / AHD/201 4 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE RESPONDENT WHO HAD SUBSCRIBED FOR THE SHARES O F SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. IN QUESTION, HE OUGHT ALSO TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IN RESPECT THEREOF AND HELD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IMPUGNE D BEFORE HIM HAD BEEN PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 5. AS THE APPEAL ITSELF IS HELD TO BE NON - MAINTAINABLE, THE VERY FOUNDATION OF CROSS OBJECTION CEASES TO HOLD GOOD IN LAW. THE CROSS OBJECTION IS, THEREFORE, ALSO DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T TODAY ON THE 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 24 TH DECEMBER, 2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BE NCHES, AHMEDABAD