Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
141920514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-02-2012
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Next Hearing Date
16-02-2012
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
04-05-2009
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SL. NO. ITA NO. A.Y. APPELLANT VS RESPONDENT 1. 1419/AHD/2009 2002- 03 ALPESHKUMAR J MANGUKIA, 222, KAMAL GAUG, LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD, SURAT-6 PAN NO.AEMPM3142F I.T.O.WARD- 9(1) SURAT 2. 4005/AHD/2008 2002- 03 -DO- VS ITO, WARD- 9(1) SURAT 3. 2233/AHD/2008 2004- 05 SMT. ALPABEN SANJEEVBHAI PATEL, B-25, TRIKAM NAGAR SOCIETY, L.H ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.AGTPP0321J VS ITO, WARD- 9(1) SURAT 4. 2107/AHD/2008 2004- 05 SHRI SANJAYH JAGDISHKUMAER HAPANI, 10-A, TRIKAM NAGAR SOCIEDTY-14, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.AAXPH7595L VS ITO, WAR- 9(4) SURAT 5. 2110/AHD/2008 2003- 04 ALPESHKUMAR CHANDULAL SHAH, PATEL COLLONY, NR. F.C.GANDHI MILLS, A.K. ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.ABNPS6858C VS ITO, WARD- 8(1) SURAT 6. 2231/AHD/2008 2001- 02 SHRI CHETANBHAI PRAHALADBHAI VS ITO WARD- 9(1), SURAT PAGE 2 PATEL, HUF, A- 11, TRIKAM NAGAR SOCIETY NO.1, L/H ROAD SURAT PAN NO.AAAHC811B 7. 4112/AHD/2008 2004- 05 GOPALBHAI DHARMSHI PATEL- HUF, 303, SARVESHWAR COMPLEX, TRIKAM NAGAR, L/H ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.AABHG2767F VS ITO, WARD- 9(2), SURAT 8. 429/AHD/2008 2004- 05 SHRI SANJEEVKUMAR RAVJIBHAI PATEL- HUF, B-25, TRIKAM NAGAQR SOCIETY, LH. ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.AAHS1503B VS ITO, WARD- 9(4) SURAT 9. 2315/AHD/2009 2004- 05 SHRI CHANDULAL AMRUTLAL SHAH, BUNG NO.74, SAIFEE SOCIETY, L./H. ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.ADAPS5844F VS ITO, WARD- 9(1), SURAT SL NO. ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR APPELLANT VS RESPONDENT 1A. 288/AHD/2009 2000-01 ITO, WARD-6(2) SURAT VS SHRI JAGDISHBHAI THAKERSHIBHAI HAPANI, 6/983, 2 ND FL. GHIYA ST, MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT PAN NO.ABLPP5566G 2A. 2574/AHD/2009 2001-02 ITO WARD- 9(2), SURAT VS. SHRI HITESH CHAMPAKLAL ANAJWALA, HUF, C-3, PAAVITRA ROW HOUSE, ANAND MAHAL RD. SURAT PAGE 3 PAN NO.AABHH5594R 3A. 2082/AHD/2008 2000-01 ITO WARD-9(1) SURAT VS SHRI CHADULAL A SHAH (HUF), BUNGLOW NO.74, SAIFEE SOCIETY, L.H. ROAD, SURAT PAN NO.AAAHC8116R 4A. 339/AHD/2007 1998-99 ITO WARD- 3[2], SURAT VS SHRI AMISH CHAMPAKLAL ANAJWALA PROP. AMISH TEXTILES, C-4, PAVITRA ROW HOUSE, ANAND MAHAL RD., ADAJAN, SURAT PAN NO.ABUPA7230R 5A. 2083AHD/2008 2001-02 ITO WARD- 9(3), SURAT VS SMT. MRUDULABEN CHANDULAL SHAH, 110, SANTK APARTMENTS, VARACHHA RD., SURAT PAN NO.ADZPS8833R SL.NO. ASSESSEE BY REVENUE BY 1A,2A, SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR SHRI SANJEEB KASHYAB, SR-DR 4A, 5A SHRI MEHUL K PATEL, AR SHRI G.S.SURYABANSHI, SR-DR SL.NO. ASSESSEE BY REVENUE BY 1,2 SHRI MEHUL K. PATEL, AR SHRI SANJEEB KASHYAB, SR-DR 5,9 SHRI MEHUL K PATEL, AR SHRI G.S.SURYABANSHI, SR -DR 3,6, SHRI MANIS J SHAH,AR SHRI SANJEEB KASHYAB, SR- DR 7,8 SHRI MANISH J SHAH, AR SHRI G.S.SURYABANSHI, SR -DR DATE OF HEARING: 16-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17-02-20 12 / // / ORDER PER BENCH:- PAGE 4 THESE NINE APPEALS OF THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND FIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARISE FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AS PER DETAILS BELOW:- ITA NO. CIT(A) ORDER DATED A.Y. 1419/AHD/09 CIT(A)-V, 17-02-09 2002-03 4005/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 25-09-2008 2002-03 2233/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 11-03-2008 2004-05 2107/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 17-03-2008 2004-05 2110/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 17-03-2008 2003-04 2231/AHD./08 CIT(A)-V 17-03-2008 2001-02 4112/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 29-08-2007 2004-05 429/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 26-10-2007 2004-05 2315/AHD/09 CIT(A)-V 07-07-09 2004-05 288/AHD/09 CIT(A)-IV 28-11-2008 2000-01 2574/AHD/09 CIT(A)-V 30-06-2009 2001-02 2082/AHD/08 CIT(A)-V 19-03-2008 2000-01 339/AHD/2007 CIT(A)-II 20-11-2006 1998-99 2083/AHD/2008 CIT(A)-V 17-03-2008 2000-01 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.1419/AHD/2009 (MENTIONED HEREINABOVE) AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A)-V, SURAT DATED 17- 02-2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE AS WELL AS THAT OF REVENUE ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE. THEREFORE ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 4. THE LD. COUNSELS FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. MANISH J SHAH AND MR. MEHUL K PATEL, THE ADVOCATES APPEARING FOR DIFFERENT ASSESS EES MENTIONED PAGE 5 HEREINABOVE ARGUED THAT FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW IN ALL THE APPEALS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, IT DOES NOT EMANATE AS TO IN WHOSE HANDS ULTIMATELY, THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AND NOWHER E IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS TO THE ENTITIES IN WHICH SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS A RE TO BE DONE. ACCORDINGLY BY ALL THESE APPEALS BEFORE BENCH PERTAIN TO PROTECTIV E ADDITIONS ONLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLARITY AS TO THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITI ONS. 5. MOREOVER, MOST OF THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF DI FFERENT ITEMS ARE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PAPER ENTRIES RECORDED AND FOU ND FROM THE PREMISE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF SURAT. THE RE IS NO FINDING BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN FACT, UTILIZED / TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF SUCH PAPER ENTRIES IN LATER YEAR S WHICH IS VERY MATERIAL TO DECIDE THE TAXABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION. 6. IN SOME OF THE MATTERS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE A DDITIONS MADE PERTAIN TO THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE WHILE IT IS NOT CLEAR A S TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE ABOUT THE BALANCE IN THE PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEARS. 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSE SSING OFFICER IN ALL THE CASES AND CONCEDED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD IN WHOSE HANDS THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LEGAL AS WELL AS FAC TUAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE ALL THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE REVENUE INCLUDING THE APPEAL FILED IN THE CASE OF PENALTY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO W ILL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AND AFTER GIVING AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE S CONCERNED ON ALL THE ISSUES, WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO KEEPING IN CONSI DERATION THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND UTILIZATION OF THE CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARIES. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE ALL THE PAGE 6 MATTERS DE NOVO AS DIRECTED ABOVE BUT BY PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. SINCE ALL THE MATTERS IN QUANTUM APPEALS MENTION ED HEREINABOVE HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE APPEALS DE NOVO INCLUDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.4005/AHD/2008 WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1 )(C) LEVIED BY THE AO. SINCE THE MATTER IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO.40 05/AHD/2008 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING THE SAME D E NOVO THEN THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ITA NO.1419/AHD/2009 BEFORE US DOES NOT SURVIVE. THE AO MAY REINITIATE THE PENALTY AS PER L AW, AFTER PASSING THE QUANTUM ORDER AS DIRECTED HEREINABOVE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1419/A HD/09, (2) 4005/AHD/08, (3) 2233/AHD/08, (4) 2107/AHD/08, (5) 2110/AHD/08, (6) 2231/AHD/08, (7) 4112/AHD/08, (8) 429./AHD/08 & (9) 2315/AHD/09 AND THAT OF REVENUE IN ITA NO.288/AHD/09 (B), 2574/AHD/09, ( C) 2082/AHD/08, (D) 339/AHD/07, & (E) 2083/AHD/08 ARE ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 17/ 0 2 /2012 THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 17/02/ 2012 . SD/- SD/- ( G.C.GUPTA ) ( B.P. JAIN ) (VICE PRESIDENT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) - 17/02/2012 '#$ DKP* %&'&() %&'&() %&'&() %&'&() '*( ' '*( ' '*( ' '*( ' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. '),-. / APPELLANT 2. %/-. / RESPONDENT 3. $&1' 2 3 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 2 3- '), / CIT (A) 5. (67, %&'&&1, 2 '),, '&12, '#$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ =)/# )>,2 2 '),, '&12, '#$
