Shri Pokhraj Doshi, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Baroda

ITA 1522/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1171 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTONY PARIATH
• Keywords: Bogus purchase

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2013 SHRI POKHRAJ DOSHI VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO.1522/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI POKHRAJ P. DOSHI ...............APPEL LANT NARSINH ESTATE, YAMUNA MILL ROAD, PRATAPNAGAR, BARODA PAN : ABOPD 2129 A VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ........................... .RESPONDENT WARD 5 (1), BARODA APPEARANCES BY: URVASHI SHODHAN, FOR THE APPELLANT ANTONY PARIATH, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : JULY 5TH, 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : JULY 7 TH , 2016 O R D E R BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HAS C HALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 21.03.2013 CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.99,320/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, POI NTED OUT THAT THE RELATED QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE MADE IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. SHE SUBMITS THAT VIDE ORDER DATED 04.01.2013 DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6 AND 2006-07, THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RESTRICTED THE QUANTUM ADDITION T O THE 20% OF THE TOTAL ALLEGED PURCHASES. SHE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2005-06 IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY ON THE MATERIALLY SIMILAR FACTS, ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 26.07.2013 HAS DELETED THE RELATED PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PU RCHASES CONFIRMED BY THE SAME ORDER HAS BEEN DELETED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT CAN NOT BE OPEN TO THIS SMC BENCH TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER, THAN THE VIEW SO TAKE N BY THE DIVISION BENCH, SO FAR AS THE SMC-ITA NO. 1522/AHD/2013 SHRI POKHRAJ DOSHI VS. ITO ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS CONCERNED. I AM, THEREFO RE, URGED TO FOLLOW THE DIVISION BENCH ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND DELETE THI S PENALTY OF RS.99,320/- AS WELL. 3. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH NOW STAND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL THOUGH PARTLY. HE SUBMITS THAT ONCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE RE LATED QUANTUM ADDITION, AND THERE IS NOTHING AVAILABLE FOR THE DEFENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE CONFIRMED. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF TH E APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. I FIND THAT, AS LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY POINTS OUT, MATERI ALLY IDENTICAL ADDITION IN RESPECT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WAS CONFIRMED BY THE DIVISION BENCH; HOWE VER, SO FAR AS PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS CONCERNED, THE SAME PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETE D BY ANOTHER DIVISION BENCH BY ORDER DATED 26.07.2013 IN ITA NO.426/AHD/2013. WHILE DOI NG SO, THE DIVISION BENCH HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT INCOME WAS ASSESSED ON ESTIMA TE BASIS AND THIS ESTIMATION VARIED FROM FORUM TO FORUM. THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED BY THE DIVI SION BENCH BIND THIS SMC BENCH. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF THE DI VISION BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.99,320/-. THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 7 TH JULY, 2016 SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 7 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016 BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD