Indo Poly Rayons Limited, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Surat

ITA 165/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 16520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.165 / AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05) INDO POLY RAYONS LTD., 104, EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, RING ROAD, SURAT-395002 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE I, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AABCH2783H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI M K PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D K SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 12.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.12.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SURAT DATED 26.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INC OME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,94,443/- U/S. 271( L)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM IT PROPER. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, LATER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF TH E APPEAL. 2. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. IN THE VERY BEG INNING THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE. HE SUBMITTED THE TRI BUNAL DECISION IN I.T.A.NO.165 /AHD/2010 2 QUANTUM PROCEEDING IN I.T.A.NO. 2109/AHD/2008 DATED 12.10.2012. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD. WHEREAS THE NAME OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS INDO POLY RAYONS LTD. BUT THE PRESENT A SSESSEE WAS EARLIER KNOWN AS HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD. AS HAS BEEN NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PAGE 1 OF HIS ORDER AGAINST THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. MAY ALSO BE ASKED TO VERIFY THIS ASPE CT. LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT HE A.O. SHOULD BE ASKED TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETH ER THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND NAME OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN I.T.A.NO. 2109/AHD/2008 IS THE SAME OR NOT. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IS HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD. AND IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED IS INDO POLY RAYONS LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS HINGORA INDUSTRIES LTD.). WE ALSO FIND THAT AS PER THE PEN ALTY ORDER, THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED FOR THE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS .30,50,711/- WHICH INCLUDES ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS.28.80 LACS. IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REG ARDING ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.28.80 LACS U/S 68 AND CONSEQUENTIAL INTEREST THEREON OF RS.1,70,711/- TOTAL RS.30,50,711/-. CONSIDERING AL L THESE FACTS, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEE DING IS OF THE SAME ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION ITSELF HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE PENALTY CANNOT SURVIVE. WE, THEREFOR E, DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, THE A.O. CAN VERIFY T HIS ASPECT THAT WHETHER THE PRESENT ASSESSEE I.E. INDO POLY RAYONS LTD. AND THE ASSESSEES NAME IN TRIBUNAL ORDER IN QUANTUM PROCEEDING AVAILABLE IN I .T.A.NO. 2109/AHD/2008 DATED 12.10.2012 I.E. HINGORA INDUSTR IES LTD. IS ONE AND THE SAME PERSON OR NOT AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THES E TWO NAMES ARE OF THE I.T.A.NO.165 /AHD/2010 3 ONE AND THE SAME PERSON THEN THE PENALTY STANDS DEL ETED AND IF THESE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON, THEN , THE PENALTY SURVIVE S. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. 5. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 14.12.2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 24.12.2012.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 31/12/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31/12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31/12/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .