Shri Arvindbhai M. Patel, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(1), Surat

ITA 1295/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9714 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1295/AHD/2012 / A.Y. 2005-06 SHRI ARVINDBHAI M. PATEL, AT & POST KHAMBHASLA, VIA KHARVASA, TAL: CHORYASI, SURAT PAN : AFLPP 1669 N VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (1), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) B Y APPELLANT : NONE BY RESPONDENT : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/12/2016 / O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 CHALLENGES THE CIT(A)-IV, SURATS ORDER DATED 30.01.2012, PASSED I N CASE NO.CAS- IV/34/10-11, UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION I MPOSING PENALTY OF RS.1,11,455/- IN HIS ORDER DATED 30.03.2010, IN PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES B EHEST DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS ALREADY A RECALLED MATTER DISMISSED EA RLIER FOR NON-PROSECUTION. A PERUSAL OF THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSE E SIDE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 19.12.2016 FORMING PART OF RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PROCEEDED EX-PARTE. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO.1295/AHD/2012 ARVINDBHAI M. PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 2 - 3. WE COME TO BASIC RELEVANT FACTS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FRAMED REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEES CASE ON 30.11.2007 INTER ALIA MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS INCLUDING THE ONE PERTAINING TO I MPUGNED PENALTY, I.E., DEPOSITS OF RS.4,01,147/- AS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT FOR WANT OF ANY EXPLANATION DESPITE GRANTING NUMEROUS OPPORTUNITIES . HE INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT ALLEGING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY WAY OF FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME IN THE QUANTUM LOWER APPELLATE ORDER PASSED ON 02.06.2008. QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS SEEM TO HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY AT THIS STAGE. 4. WE COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS REPLY ON 20.08.2008 STATING THEREIN THAT HIS WI FE HAD DEPOSITED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF CURRENT AS WELL AS ACCUMULATED INCOME IN ASSESSEES NAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ECLINED THE SAME IN HIS ORDER DATED 30.03.2010 QUOTING ASSESSEES FAILURE I N PRODUCING COGENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE ABOVE CLAIM THEREBY LEVYING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.1,11,455/- AS UPHELD IN THE LOWER APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS INTER ALIA COMPRISING OF HIS WIFE SMT. HANSABEN A. PATEL RETURN, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNT/BALANCE SHEET, ACCOUNT STAT EMENT OF THE BANK DEPOSIT CONCERNED TO PLEAD THAT SHE HAS ALREADY DEC LARED THE SAME AS HER INCOME OF THE VERY ASSESSMENT YEAR. HIS FURTHER CA SE IS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAVE ALREADY ASSESSED HER QUA THE VERY AM OUNT FORMING SUBJECT MATTER OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. THE REVENUES VERY STRONG ARGUMENT IS THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT PLEA TO DELAY THE IMPUGN ED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WE OBSERVE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ITA NO.1295/AHD/2012 ARVINDBHAI M. PATEL VS. ITO A.Y. 2005-06 - 3 - MAKE OUT ATLEAST A PRIMA FACIE CASE IN HIS FAVOUR T HAT THE VERY QUANTUM ADDITION SUM HAS COME FROM HIS WIFES SIDE AS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN HER RETURN AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. WE REITERATE TRITE PRE POSITION OF LAW THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREI N EACH AND EVERY ADDITION DOES NOT LEAD TO AUTOMATIC LEVY OF PENALTY . WE HAVE ALREADY INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ABOVE MAT ERIAL FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE INSTANT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US. LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT CORRECTNESS THEREOF AT THIS STAGE. WE THUS ACCEPT ASSESSEES CONTENTION IN PRINCIPLE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AFTER CARRYING OUT A FACTUAL VERIF ICATION REGARDING SMT. HANSABENS DETAILS NARRATED HEREINABOVE. THIS ASSE SSEES APPEAL SUCCEEDS IN ABOVE TERMS. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AS PER TERMS I NDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 ND DECEMBER , 201 6 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 22/12/2016 *BT !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % & / CONCERNED CIT 4. & ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ) % , % , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD