The ITO, Ward-91), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Shreeji Builders, Ankleshwar

ITA 1489/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80311 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1489/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] ITO, WARD-9(1) AHMEDABAD. /VS. M/S.SHREEJI BUILDERS 4, ABHISHEK SOCIETY MEGHANINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAWFS 8285 R ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI NIMESH YADAV, SR.DR 4& 1 2 )/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE 5 1 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 22 ND AUGUST, 2014 678 1 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007-2008 IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT, AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS BEING DECIDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS, AFTER HEARING T HE LEARNED DR. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IS AS UNDER: ITA NO.1489/AHD/2011 -2- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,40,522/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT IN RESPONSE OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.19,02,922/- MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) O F THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE/A DDITION OF RS.19.02 LAKHS WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, PENALTY FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS RIGHTLY M ADE BY THE AO. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS DEPOSITED TDS ON 7.4.2008, AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO LOSS T O THE REVENUE, AND HE DIRECTED THE DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE AMO UNT OF DISALLOWANCE. WE FIND THAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF DISALLOWANCE DUE TO SOME TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW AND ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IMPOSE D ON THE ASSESSEE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT