The Jinjva Dudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandli Ltd., Idar V. The Income Tax Officer, S.K. Ward-2, Himatnagar

ITA 166/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1515 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D V SINGH

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 1 6 6 /AHD/ 20 1 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD C BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM ] I.T.A. NO. 1 66 /AHD/ 20 1 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 13 - 14 THE JINJVA DUDH UTPAD A K SAHAK A RI MANDLI LTD. ........ ........ APPELLANT AT : JINJV , IDAR 383 430 . [ PAN: A AA AT 2028 G ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, .......... . RESPONDENT S.K. WARD - 2, HIMATNAGAR. APPEARANCES BY: SANJAY R. SHAH, FOR THE APPELLANT D.V. SINGH , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 12 TH , 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 31 ST , 201 6 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : 1. THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DAT E D 7 TH OCTOBER, 2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY OF RS. 77,067 / - I MPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 39 DAYS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A CONDONATION PETITION. HAVING PERUSED THE PETITION AND HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONT ENTIONS ON THE SAME, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND T AKE UP THE MATTER ON MERITS. I.T.A. NO . 1 6 6 /AHD/ 20 1 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 13 - 14 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LEVIED AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN TIME. THERE I S NO DISPUTE THAT THE AUDIT REPORT WAS OBTAINED IN TIME AND THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL ALONG BEEN THAT THE DELAY WAS DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE BY, O N UNINTENDED LAPSE OF, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAS ALSO GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT, CONFIRMING THE ABOVE FA C TUAL CLAIM . HOWEVER, THE PENALTY IS HELD TO BE LEVIABLE AS IT WAS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE REPORT, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE SAME. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY, AGGRIEVED BY WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. HAVING HE ARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION, I.E. LAPSE BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, AND THERE IS NOTHING TO DOUBT OR DISPUTE THE EXPLANATIO N WHICH IS DULY SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE MERITS ACCEPTANCE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY , 2016 . SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY , 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD