Smt. Alpa Mitesh Sheth, Botad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(3), Bhavnagar

ITA 1257/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6922 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1257/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SMT.ALPA MITESH SHETH PROP: OF SHETH KASTURCHAND TRIBHOVANDAS TOWER CHOWK, BOTAD / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3) BHAVNAGAR ' ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADSPS 7932 K ( '% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &''% / RESPONDENT ) '%( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURESH GANDHI, AR &''%)( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.K. SINGH, SR.DR *) / DATE OF HEARING 28/11/2014 +,-.) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/12/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 28/01/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 2005- 06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL FU LLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. 1. LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT RS.15, 300/- ITA NO.1257/AHD /2011 SMT. ALPA MITESH SHETH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 2 - 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHO LDING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.15,30 0/- BY THE A.O. WHILE MAKING AN OBSERVATION THAT THE EXPLANATION OF FERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT WAS NOT FOUND S ATISFACTORY. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS STATED HEREINABOVE EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. PRAYER THE APPELLANT THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT:- 1. THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.15, 300/- UPHELD BY THE LD.CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. SUCH AND FURTHER RELIEF AS THE NATURE AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE MAY JUSTIFY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 14/12/2007, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF NON-GENUINE BANK DEPOSIT AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY ORDER U/S.2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED VIDE ORDER DATED 18/03/2010. THE SAID O RDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), HOWEVER THE LD.CIT(A) CONSIDE RING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, DISALLOWED THE APPEAL. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUE D THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENAL TY. HE SUBMITTED THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS TH AT ONE SHRI SATISH ITA NO.1257/AHD /2011 SMT. ALPA MITESH SHETH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 3 - VENILAL DESAI WAS NOT HAVING CAPACITY TO LEND MONE Y. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO TAKE NOTE THE FACT THAT WHI LE ANSWERING QUESTION NO.6, SHRI SATISHKUMAR V.DOSHI HAS ACCEPTED THAT HE HAS MADE DEPOSIT WITH THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN AN SWER TO QUESTION NO.10, SHRI SATISHKUMAR V. DOSHI HAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTE D THAT THE COPY OF HIS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WAS SIG NED BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI SATI SHKUMAR V.DOSHI RECORDED U/S.131 OF THE ACT. THE STATEMENT SO FUR NISHED IN GUJARATI LANGUAGE AND NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION WAS PROVIDED. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE STATEMENT AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 12 /2014 2..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.1257/AHD /2011 SMT. ALPA MITESH SHETH VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2005-06 - 4 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '% / THE APPELLANT 2. &''% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 345 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD 5. 78& 45 , 45. , 3 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8:;<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, '7 & //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 11.12.2014 (DICTATION-PAD 4- PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 16.12.2014 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.19.12.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 19.12.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER .. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER