Income Tax Officer, Panchkula V. Smt.Kailash Grover,Prop, Yamunanagar

ITA 1108/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5387 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1108/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 I.T.O. WARD 2 VS. SMT. KAILALSH GROVER YAMUNANAGAR PROP. M/S VINAL ADVERTISER 7, TILAK MARKET YAMUNANAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI J.S. NAGAR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING 16.1.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20 .1.2014 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16. 9.2013 OF THE LD CIT(A), PANCHKULA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 18,40,238/- IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE QUANTUM OF WHICH STILL UNDER DISPUTE BEFORE THE HON 'BLE HIGH COURT . 2 IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3 IN THIS APPEAL NONE APPEARED DESPITE NOTICE. HOWE VER, PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE MATTER CAN BE DECIDED ON EX-PARTE BASIS, THEREFORE WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE TH E ISSUE ON EX-PARTE BASIS. 4 THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE AND RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY @ 100% ON DISALLOW ANCE OF 2 CERTAIN EXPENSES AT 50% BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) DEL ETED THE PENALTY VIDE PARA 6 TO6.2 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 6 AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURS E OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH A HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE THE FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.5.2013 IN ITA NO. 486/CHD/2011. THE HONBLE ITA T IN ITS ORDER HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH IN PARA 10 AN D 1 1 OF THE ORDER DATED 10.5.2013. AS PER FINDING GIVEN IN PARA 11 O F THE ORDER THE HONBLE ITAT HAS DELETLEL THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F PART CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-GENUINE EXPENSES HAVE BE EN DELETED. 61 REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 1 LAKH MADE OUT OF SITE RENT FOR NON VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SITE EXPE NSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,14,055/- AND ASKED APPELLANT TO PRODUCED CERTAIN VOUCHERS. THE SAME WERE HOWEVER, NOT VERIF IABLE AS A NUMBER OF VOUCHERS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE ORIGIN AL BILLS. IN SOME OF CASES THE VOUCHERS DID NOT CARRY THE SIGNAT URE OF THE RECIPIENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THE FINDING THAT THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE AND MADE AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH OUT OF TOTAL SITE RENT EXPENSE. ALTH OUGH THIS ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS OUT OF SITE EXPENSE HAVE BE EN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF PENAL TY ORDER AND ESPECIALLY PARA 6 OF PENALTY ORDER, I DO NOT FIND T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE AND I MPOSED PENALTY ON ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 LAKH. 6.2 SINCE, THE QUANTUM ADDITION ON WHICH THE PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, THEREFORE WITHOUT GOING INTO ANY MERIT OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY IN CONSEQUENCE TO DELETION OF THE QUANT UM ADDITION BY THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 10.5.2013 IN ITA NO. 486/CHD/2011. THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETE D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFO RE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOULD NOT SURVIVE AND THE SAME HAVE BEE N RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ONLY DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 1 LAKH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAME WAS ON ESTIM ATED BASIS WHICH WOULD ALSO NOT ATTRACT PENAL PROVISION. THER EFORE IN OUR OPINION, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 6 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.1.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20.1.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR 3