ITO, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT V. PANKAJ KANWARLAL JAIN (HUF), SURAT

ITA 150/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2367 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 24-03-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 150/SRT/2020 (AY: 2013-14) (Hearing in Virtual Court) Income-tax-Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat PAN : AAHHP8610E Vs. Pankaj Kunwarlal Jain (HUF), 302, Santok Diamond, Somnath Mahadev Ni Seri Haripura, Surat-395003. APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT Appellant by Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by Sh. H. P. Meena, CIT-DR Date of hearing 25/03/2022 Date of pronouncement 25/03/2022 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-1), [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)], Surat, dated 10.02.2020 which in turn arises against the order of penalty under section 271(1)(c) dated 27.03.2019 for assessment year (A.Y.) 2013-14. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs. 2,47,79,915/- despite of the fact that quantum addition was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble ITAT’s order without appreciating the detailed findings of the AO in the assessment order/penalty order which established the involvement of bogus purchase by the ITA No. 150/SRT/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF, Surat 2 assessee duly substantiated by the statement under oath in the search proceedings u/s 132(4) of the Act given by the accommodation entry providers and the Revenue has preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble High Court, Gujarat against the decision of the ITAT. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the penalty order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the penalty order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1 Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer’s penalty order may be restored. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant craves its right to add, alter, amend, deleted, any of the ground or grounds of appeal.” 2. At the outset of hearing, the ld. Authorized Representative (ld. AR) submits that the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum assessment in ITA 269/SRT/2017 dated 27.08.2019, wherein the additions on account of bogus purchase was deleted. The ld. CIT(A) while granting the relief to the assessee failed the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 269/SRT/2017 dated 27.08.2019. 3. On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT-DR further submitted that the revenue has already filed appal against the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 269/SRT/2019, before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. ITA No. 150/SRT/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF, Surat 3 Therefore, matter may be kept pending till the outcome of decision of Hon'ble High Court in quantum assessment. 4. We have considered the rival submission of both the parties and have gone through the order of lower authorities. We find that the addition on the basis of which penalty was levied has already been deleted by Tribunal in assessee’s own case in quantum appeal in ITA No. 269/SRT/2017 dated 27.08.2019. It is settled law that once, the additions is deleted the penalty under section 271(1)(c) will not survive. Therefore, we affirmed the order of ld. CIT(A). So far as, the objection of the of Ld. CIT-DR for the revenue that till the disposal of the appeal before Hon'ble High Court in quantum additions, the appeal may be kept in abeyance, we do not find any force his submission to keep the matter alive. In the result, the grounds of appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 5. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 25/03/2022, in open court and result was placed on notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 25/03/2022 Ganesh Kumar ITA No. 150/SRT/2020 (A.Y. 2013-14) Pankaj Kanwarlal Jain HUF, Surat 4 Copy to: 1. Assessee – 2. Revenue - 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. Guard File True copy/ By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Surat Tr Date Initial Draft order was prepared by author himself Draft placed before author Draft proposed & placed before the second member Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Kept for pronouncement on File sent to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the AR Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. Date of dispatch of Order. Draft dictation sheets are attached