ACIT, Lucknow V. M/s. Sahara India Marketing, Lucknow

ITA 158/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75145 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MITRA
• Assessee Lawyers: J J MEHROTRA
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 158 /LKW/201 1 A.Y.:1997 - 98 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, LUCKNOW. VS. M/S SAHARA INDIA MARKETING, SAHARA INDIA BHAWAN - I, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW. PAN:AAKFS5802J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI J. J. MEHROTRA, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 27/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 3 1 /01/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT ( A) - I, NEW DELHI DATED 15/10/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997 - 98. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CIT ( A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING AN ORDER WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN THIS CASE THE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUCKNOW AND THE CIT ( A) - I DID NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THESE ORDERS OF THE AO. MOREOVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CENTRALIZED IN DELHI. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD ATTRACT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE I.T. ACT IN SPITE OF TH E FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECORD AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION REGARDING WHY THE INCOME SURRENDERED DOES NOT QUALIFY 2 UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT FO LLOWING THE JURISPRUDENCE AS LAID DOWN IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. HARPRASHAD & COMPANY (DELHI) 328 - ITR - 53, MODEL FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (319) ITR (AT) - 51 (DELHI), ACIT VS. SURENDIR LAL CHOPRA (2010) 2 - ITR (TRIB) 790 - DELHI, CIT VS. ESCORT FINANCE LTD. 188 - ITR - 87 (DELHI) WHICH ARE THE DECISIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT FOR CIT(A) WHO HAS PASSED THIS ORDER. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT ( A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS WELL AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE BORDER OF THE A .O. BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANY ONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER WHEREAS IT IS SUBMITTED BY LEA RNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS , THE APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT ( A) BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR FRESH DECISION IN I.T.A. NO.92/LKW/02 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 16 OF THE P APER BOOK. HE SUBMITTED THAT AFTER THIS, THE LEARNED CIT ( A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE AFRESH. HE AGREED THAT THE PENALTY MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE CIT ( A) TO BE DECIDED WITH QUANTUM MATTER . 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION ON MERIT. A S PER LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL IN QUANTUM IS PENDING BEFORE LEARNED CIT ( A). IN TH IS SITUATION, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE PENALTY MATTER SHOULD ALSO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT ( A) FOR FRESH DECISION. THE LEARNED CIT ( A) SHOULD PA SS SUITABLE ORDER AS 3 PER LAW IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH HIS ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, IN CASE THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF THEN THE CIT ( A) SHOULD PASS FRESH ORDER IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LIGHT OF HIS FRESH ORD ER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION, NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 3 1 / 01/ 2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR