Shri Atul P.Sharedalal, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-3, Ahmedabad

ITA 1078/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6897 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1078 AND 1079/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] SHRI ATUL P. SHAREDALAL 506, SAKAR-I NR. GANDHIGRAM RLY. CROSSING NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. /VS. ACIT, CIR.3 AHMEDABAD. ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK SONI + 2 3 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR 5 2 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2014 678 2 &(* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 7/11/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 ARE DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONS OLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.1078/AHD/2011 (QUANTUM APPEAL) 2. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. THE ORDER IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AND THE FACTS OF Y OUR APPELLANTS ITA NO.1078 AND 1079/AHD/2011 -2- CASE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BE CANCELLED AND/OR SUITABLY MODIFIED. 2.0 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE AO HAD GROSSLY VIOLATED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND THE PROCEDURE OF LAW. THE AP PELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND FURTHER EACH AND V ERY VARIATION TO THE RETURNED INCOME IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATU4AL JUSTICE AND DEFIANCE OF THE DE CISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER. THE APPELLANT SUBMIT S THAT THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 2.1 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD AND FURTHER WITHOUT PROVIDING COPIES OF THE MATERIALS, STATEMENTS ETC. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BE QUASHED. 3.0 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.2 ,30,989/- MADE BY THE AO ALLEGING INCOME DERIVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE INCOME OF RS.2,30,989/- WAS DERIVE D BY SHRI ATUL PRAVIN SHAREDALAL (HUF) OUT OF RETAIL BUSINESS CARR IED BY IT. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT RETAIL BUSNI3SS WAS CARRIED ON BY THE HUF AND THE INCOME OF RS.2,30,989/- WAS CONSIDERED IN C OMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE HUF. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE HAD NOT CARRIED ON ANY RETAIL BUSINESS AND HE HAD DERIVED N O INCOME AND THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.2,30,989/- IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS. THE ADDITIONS OF RS.2,30,89/- BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE SAME RETAIL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TWICE, FIRSTL Y, IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE-HUF AND SECONDLY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE- INDIVIDUAL. HE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) ON 25.11.2009 IN THE HUF CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY FI LED IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN IDENTICA L FACTS OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI PRAVIN RATILAL, THE ITAT, AHMEDA BAD BENCH IN ITA NO.1200/AHD/20009 FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2006-07 ORDER D ATED 13.5.2011 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE, A COPY OF ITA NO.1078 AND 1079/AHD/2011 -3- THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS FILED AT PAGE NO.12 O NWARDS IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED DR R ELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HUF CASE OF THE AS SESSEE DATED 25.11.2009, AND ALSO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 13.5.2011. WE FIND THAT THE INCOME FROM THE SAME RETAIL BUSINESS COULD NOT BE TAXED TWICE IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE-INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HUF. ACCORD INGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BEING UNJUSTIFIED, WE DIRECT THE DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.2,30,989/- MADE BY THE AO AND THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITANO.1079/AHD/2011 [PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT.] 5. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1.0 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ORDER UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) FRAMED BY THE AO. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) IS BAD IN LAW SINCE IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND T HE FACTS OF YOUR APPELLANTS CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HE LD NOW. 2.0 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON 23 RD JUNE, 2010 U/S.271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AS THE ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED IN VIOLATIO N OF PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275. THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 2.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW A S IT HAS BEEN FRAMED IGNORING THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELL ANT, THE SUBMISSIONS PLACED ON THE RECORDS OF THE AO AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE ORDER IS IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NA TURAL JUSTICE. THE ORDER BE QUASHED. 2.2 THE ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) IS BAD IN LAW AS THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALMENT O INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURA TE PARTICULARS. EACH AND EVERY INCOME WAS DISCLOSED AS PER THE PROV ISIONS OF LAW AND EACH AND EVERY PARTICULAR WAS CORRECT FURNISHED . THE ORDE4 ITA NO.1078 AND 1079/AHD/2011 -4- ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) IS BAD IN A LAW AND BE QUASHED. THE ORDER OF THE AO BE QUASHED. 2.3 THE ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) HAS BEEN FRAMED IN VIO LATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION N273B AND NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THERE EXISTED A REASONABLE CAUSE. THE ORDER BE THEREFORE QUASHED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR DECIS ION DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IN ITA NO.1078/AHD/2011, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FO R LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD