Kansara Bearings Limited, JODHPUR V. ACIT, JODHPUR

ITA 168/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8021 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN BANSAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 168/JU/2012 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05] KANSARA BEARINGS LIMITED VS. THE I.T.O A-41(B) PAN NO: APMPS 9081 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VARUN BANSAL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.K. KHANDELWAL DATE OF HEARING : 06.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2012 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2- 03 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 26.08.2011 AND EMANATES FROM AN ORDER DATED 23.10.2 008 2 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE I TO, BANSWARA. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY U/S 1332(A) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS 'THE ACT', FOR SHORT] WAS CONDUCTED ON 22.2.2002 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SA LE OF SILVER ORNAMENTS. ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT COMPLETE. HENCE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF EXCESS CASH OF RS. 1,01,776/- INTER-ALIA. TE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCO ME [ROI] FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2001 TO 31.3.2002 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2 002-03. THE ADDITIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS . 91,337/- WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). BUT, THIS ADDITION WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED AND A PENALTY OF RS. 27,949/- IN RES PECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 91,337/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH, W AS IMPOSED. THIS PENALTY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) A S WELL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN THIS SECOND APPEAL. 3 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE FO UND IT FOR A FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 91,337/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). TH E TRIBUNAL HAS AGAIN RESTORED THIS ADDITION. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFE LY CONCLUDED THAT THERE ARE TWO VIEWS WHICH ARE POSSIBLE ON THIS ISSU E, SINCE, THE PARAMETERS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO QUANTUM PROCEEDI NGS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREF ORE, THE MERE FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT VIE W AND HAD DELETED THIS ADDITION, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF THE VERY SAME ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD: 1. CIT VS. CALCUTTA CREDIT CORPORATION 166 ITR 29 [CAL ] 2. DURGA DEVI KAMAL RICE MILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 [CAL ] 3. SMT. NEELAM SAXENA VS. DCIT ITSSA NO. 160/JP/2003 DATED 8.11.2004 ON THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE LD. A.R. HAS PLACED HIS RELIANCE. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE 4 DECISIONS, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AND ACCEPT THIS PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012 VL/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR