The ITO, Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Shailesh Dungarbhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad

ITA 184/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9935 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 184/AHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ITO, WARD-9(4), AHMEDABAD VS SHRI SHAILESH D. PRAJAPATI, M.K. HOUSE, NR. TIRUPATI MARBEL, GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY ROAD, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD-380 016 PAN : AGCPP 8621 N / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/11/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD DATED 01.11.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.31,9 0,067/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BASED ON UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE PENALTY ORDER HAD BEEN PASSED BY PRE-DATING. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, CON TENDS THAT THE QUANTUM IN QUESTION HAS BEEN DELETED BY ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 04.09.2015 IN ITA NO.3209/AHD/2011, BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT FR AMED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT WHICH BY O RDER DATED 07.06.2016 IN TAX APPEAL NO.389 OF 2016 DISMISSED THE REVENUE S APPEAL. SINCE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION DOES NOT SURVIVE, THE CONSEQUE NT PENALTY ALSO WOULD NOT SURVIVE. SMC-ITA NO. 184/AHD/2014 ITO VS. SHRI SHAILESH DUNGARBHAI PRAJAPATI AY : 2008-09 2 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISP UTE THESE ORDERS. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT O F GUJARAT. SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL ( SUPRA) BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS W ITHOUT JURISDICTION, THE CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) ON SUCH ADDITION DOES NOT SURVIVE. THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/11/2016 *BIJU T., SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD