Shri Prakash K Saboo, Nanded V. ITO Wd. 3(1), Nanded

ITA 1601/PUN/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7538 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Valuation report
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO. 1601/PN/08 (ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04) MR. PRAKASH K. SABOO, PROP. BHAIJI SUITING & SHIRTING AND M/S. BHAIJI PLACE, SHIVAJINAGAR, NANDED PAN NO. ABIPS7084H .... APPELLANT VS. ITO WARD 3(1), NANDED . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.S. SINGH ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II, AURANGABAD DATED 30/05/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 03-04. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL INFORMED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CON SIDERATION IS ABOVE THE LIVABILITY OF THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN CONNECT ION WITH CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION BY THE TRIBUNAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,92,142/- . 2. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL NARRATED THAT THE SAID AD DITION HAS GENESIS AT THE REGISTERED VALUATION REPORT REGARDING THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY AT BHAIJI PALACE. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED SUCH REGISTERED VALUATI ON REPORT IS MERE CASE OF ESTIMATIONS AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION WHICH ARE CRYSTALLIZED AT THE LEVEL OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE BASED ON ESTIMATION ONLY ELABORATING THE SAME, FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT IT IS THE SETTLED ISSUE THAT THE ADDITIONS CRYSTALLIZED BASED ON THE ESTIMATIONS DOES NOT INVITE LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- I) CIT VS. IQBAL SINGH & CO.-180 TAXMAN 355 II) HARIGOPAL SINGH VS. CIT 258 ITR 85 ITA NO. 1601/PN/08 A.Y: 2003-04 PAGE 2 OF 2 III) RAJAN H. SHINDE VS. DCIT 103 ITD 360 (PUNE) IV) MANSUKH DASS SONI VS. ACIT 99 TTJ 894 V) CIT VS. APSARA TAWKIES (MAD) 115 ITR 303 VI) DILIP N. SHROFF - 291 ITR 519 (SC) 4. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED NATURE OF THE ISSUE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED REGISTERED VALUATION REPORT IS THE CASE OF ESTIMATIONS, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIONS CRYSTALLIZED AT RS. 3,92 ,142/- AT THE LEVEL OF THE ITAT IS ALSO A CASE OF ESTIMATIONS. HENCE, THE ADDITIONS BASED ON THE ESTIMATIONS DOES NOT INVITE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). THE ABOV E CITATIONS REFERRED BY LD. COUNSEL HAVE APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CAS E. CONSEQUENTLY, IN OUR OPINION THIS IS NOT THE FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) (D.KAR UNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2011 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ITO, WARD 3(1), NANDED 3. CIT(A)-II, AURANGABAD 4. CIT, AURANGABAD 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE