The ITO, Ward-9(1), Ahmedabad V. Satsang Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 1512/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76741 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1512/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2005-2006] ITO, WARD-9(1) AHMEDABAD. /VS. M/S.SATSANG CORPORATION 7/1, SANGTATHAN SOCIETY VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAZFS 0052 P ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR 12 . / &/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE 3 . 24'/ DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH MAY, 2014 567 . 24'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-06-2014 &8 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DECIDED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING LE ARNED DR. ITA NO.1512/AHD/2011 -2- 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE OR DER OF THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A), AND THEREFORE, P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED BY THE AO. HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CONVINCING REASON WHILE DE LETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, ON ACCOUNT OF LATE DEPOSIT OF THE TDS AMOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF, AND MERELY BECAUSE THE DISALL OWANCE WAS MADE AS PER THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF LAW, IS NO GROUND TO JU STIFY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIN D THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE TDS AMOUN T WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT, ALTHOUGH LA TE, AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY WAS WARRANTED FOR TECHNICAL BREACH OF LAW, WHICH DID NOT HAVE ANY MALA FIDE BEHIND. THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT