Shri Vinodbhai Arvindbhai Patel, Anand V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Anand

ITA 1100/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1082 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 1100 / AHD/20 1 3 A.Y. 1996 - 97 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1100 / AHD /201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996 - 97 SHRI VINODBHAI ARVINDBHAI PATEL VS. INCOME TAX OF FICER , PROP. SHAKTI CONSTRUCTION , WARD - 1, ANAND . 13, SHIV COMPLEX, NR. LAXMI CINEMA, ANAND. [PAN A ESPP 6788 E ] (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : S MT. ARTI N. SHAH, A.R. RE SPONDENT BY : S HRI SANJAY KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 .0 7 . 20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 . 0 7 .2016 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA , J.M. THE ASSESSEE FI LED THE INSTANT APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996 - 97 , AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) - IV , BARODA DATED 27.12.2012 CONFIRMING PENALT Y IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE CHALLENGES SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY OF RS.1,44,800/ - IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 3. WE COME TO THE RELEVANT FACTS FIRST. THIS ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL IS ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION AND PETROLEUM RETAIL TRADE. HE FILED RETURN ON 30.10.1996 STATING INCOME OF RS.4,79,460/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED REGULAR ASSESSMEN T ON 31.03.1996 INTER ALIA INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING ITA NO . 1100 / AHD/20 1 3 A.Y. 1996 - 97 PAGE 2 OF 3 UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF RS.13,37,000/ - BY TREATING THE SAME AS NON - GENUINE. THERE ARE TOTAL 10 CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED STATEMENTS O F 7 OF THEM. ALL OF THEM FILED CONFIRMATIONS. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE REGARDING CREDITORS IDENTITY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISPUTED GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS ON THE ISSUE OF SOURCE AND EVIDENCE ETC. HE FURTHER INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ALLEGING CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPAL. THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER DATED 31.03.2010 DELETED THE ENTIRE SECTION 68 ADDITION AMOUNT OF RS.13,37,000/ - . THE REVENUE CAME IN APPEAL ITA NO.1612/AHD/2000 BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. A CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 04.01.2008 CONFIRMED CASH CREDIT ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,68,000/ - . IT REMITTED THE SAID QUANTUM ISSUE OF RS.3,62,000/ - BACK TO THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE PARTLY SUCCEEDED QUA THE REMAINING ADDITION AMOUNT. THE CIT(A) THEREAFTER PASSED HIS CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER DATED 02.02.2010 UPHOLDING SECTION 68 ADDITION AS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,62,000/ - IN QUESTION. QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS SEEM TO HAVE ATTAINED FINA LITY UPTO THIS STAGE. 4. WE COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES INVOKED SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT QUA THIS CONFIRMED ADDITION THEREBY TREATING THE SAME AS AN ACT OF CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. THIS LEAD THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES STRONGLY SUPPORTING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ARISING FROM SECTION 68 ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS.3,62, 000/ - . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ITS CREDITORS AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE. THERE IS NO IDENTITY ISSUE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE OF THE REMAI NING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,62,000/ - MAINLY ON GENUINENESS ASPECT. WE FIND THAT ALL OF THEM TREATED EXPLANATION ITA NO . 1100 / AHD/20 1 3 A.Y. 1996 - 97 PAGE 3 OF 3 TENDERED AT ASSESSEE S BEHEST AS WELL AS THAT OF HIS CREDITORS TO BE INSUFFICIENT ON GENUINENESS ASPEC T. WE OBSERVE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS IT IS NOT A CASE OF NO EVIDENCE BUT THAT OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEING LED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THERE CAN HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE PARALLEL AND EACH AND EVERY ADDITION OR DISAL LOWANCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO LEVY OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S ARGUMENT AND PROCEED TO DELETE THE SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IN QUESTION OF RS.1,44,800/ - . 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS ASSESSEE S A PPEAL SUCCEEDS. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 25 TH DAY OF JULY 2016. SD/ - SD/ - ANIL CHATURVEDI S.S. GODARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 25 TH DAY OF JULY , 2016 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APP ELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD