Smt. Geetaben Chandulal Prajapati, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Ahmedabad

CO 39/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3516 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Section: 143(3); 148; 132

Judgement Text

ITA NO.213/AHD/2016 & CO NO.39/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.213/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. SMT. GEETABEN C HANDULAL PRJAPATI CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD. A/2, NANDANBAUG SHOPPING CENTRE, BHIMJIPURA, NEW WADAJ, AHMEDABAD 380 013. [PAN ABVPP 8912 C] C.O. NO.39/AHD/2016 (IN ITA NO.213/AHD/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SMT. GEETABEN CHANDULAL PRJAPATI VS. DY. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX, A/2, NANDANBAUG SHOPPING CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD. CENTRE, BHIMJIPURA, NEW WADAJ, AHMEDABAD 380 013. [PAN ABVPP 8912 C] (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) REVENUE BY : ALBINUS TIRKEY, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : P.F. JAIN, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.02.2018 O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJEC TION BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-10, AHMED ABAD DATED 09.11.2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) AMOUNTING TO RS.20,32,218/-. ITA NO.213/AHD/2016 & CO NO.39/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. THE ROOT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER DATED 26.10.2012 FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. A SURVEY A CTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF PRAJAPATI GRO UP ON 08.12.2009. PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.62,15,820/-. THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTE D AS SUCH AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY PENAL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED PURSUAN T TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED REPLY ST RONGLY CONTENDING THAT THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CONTE NTION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PROCEEDED BY LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.20,32,218/-. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE MATTER B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2 013 HAD DROPPED THE SAID PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN REVISITING THE SAME ISSUE BY LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DROPPED THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PER CONTRA, LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 7. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER READ AS UNDER :- DROPPING PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ITA NO.213/AHD/2016 & CO NO.39/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE 3 OF 3 IN VIEW OF THE REPLY DATED 24.03.2013, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE ABOVE CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS HEREBY DROPPED. 8. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ONCE THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED LATER ON FOR THE SAME ASS ESSMENT YEAR ON THE SAME ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY IN THE LI GHT OF AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 9. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMI SSED. 10. CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN SUPPORT O F THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018) SD/- SD/- RAJPAL YADAV N.K. BILLAIYA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 23 RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDEN T (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER E COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD