ITO, New Delhi V. M/s. Shaila Engg. Works, New Delhi

ITA 1396/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 139620114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GARIMA JAIN SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC- -- -1 11 1 : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 1396/DEL/2014 1396/DEL/2014 1396/DEL/2014 1396/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007 - -- - 08 0808 08 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D- -- -3, 3,3, 3, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S SHAIL M/S SHAIL M/S SHAIL M/S SHAIL A ENGG. WORKS, A ENGG. WORKS, A ENGG. WORKS, A ENGG. WORKS, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. PAN : AACFS0273K. PAN : AACFS0273K. PAN : AACFS0273K. PAN : AACFS0273K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. GARIMA JAIN, SENIOR DR. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. DATE OF HEARING : 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 11.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 08.09.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XXVII, NEW DELHI DATED 31 ST DECEMBER, 2013. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AR E AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) IS BAD IN LAW AND NO T IN CONSONANCE WITH FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA-1396/DEL/2014 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) HAD ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE PENALTY TO RS.2,17,210/- AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.13,57,582/- IMPOSED BY THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) HAD ERRED IN CONSIDERING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED AN INCOME OF RS.2,17,210/- (RS.1,94,432/- + RS.22,778/-). 4. LEARNED DR REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE PENALTY ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). I FIND THAT IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A), HE HAS RECORDED THAT HE HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF `38,16,016 /- AND ONLY THE ADDITION OF `2,17,210/- WAS SUSTAINED AND, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE CON CEALED INCOME OF `2,17,210/- ONLY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECT ED ACCORDINGLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY GOT SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL PREFERRED BY IT AT THE LEVEL OF THE CIT(A), THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION SUSTAINED WAS WHOLLY JUSTIFI ED AND, ACCORDINGLY, THERE BEING NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. ITA-1396/DEL/2014 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- -- -34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D 34(1), ROOM NO.D- -- -3, 3,3, 3, VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI VIKAS BHAWAN, NEW DELHI 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 110 002. 2. RESPONDENT : M/S SHAILA ENGG. WORKS, M/S SHAILA ENGG. WORKS, M/S SHAILA ENGG. WORKS, M/S SHAILA ENGG. WORKS, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, 6/467, PLOT NO.3, GALI NO.13, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, OPP. BHATTA MARKET, SEWA DHAM ROAD, MANDOLI, DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 110 095. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR