Shri Deepak Madanlal Maliwal, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1362/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5992 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONSNONE

Judgement Text

, - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1362/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2007-2008 DEEPAK MADANLAL MALIWAL 5, SAMARTH APARTMENT OPP: STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD MANINGAR AHMEDABAD 380 008. PAN: ALPM 5900 B VS. ITO, WARD-12(4) AHMEDABAD. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS/NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 01/03/2018 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05/03/2018 %& / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST O RDER OF LD.CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 27.2.2014 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE O THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.2,76,948/- IMPOSED BY T HE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER , THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI SAK AR SHARMA FILED ITA NO.1362 /AHD/2014 2 A SUBMISSION DATED 28.2.2018 STATING THAT ADDITION IN QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FI LE OF LD.CIT(A) BY TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.730/AHD/201 1 AND OTHERS DATED 12.8.2016 FOR RE-ADJUDICATION, THEREFORE, IMP UGNED PENALTY ORDER ALSO REQUIRES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY OR NOT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED UPON ORDE R OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE FIND THAT SUB-CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)( C) PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR QUANTIFICATION OF PENALTY. IT CONTEM PLATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM IN ADDITION TO TAXES, IF ANY, PAYABLE HIM, WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHIC H SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED B Y REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS DEPENDED UPON THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ISSUE OF ADDITION ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN I MPOSED HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR RE-ADJUDICAT ION VIDE ORDER DATED 12.8.2016 (SUPRA). THUS, ISSUE OF PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) IS ALSO DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY OR NOT. THERE FORE, IMPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AS INDICATED A BOVE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PRADIPKUMAR KEDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER