The ITO, Ward-4(1), Ahmedabad V. Gayatri Dairy Products Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1899/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76888 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: ARATI SHAH

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , ! ' #$ #$ #$ #$ %, ' BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER $./ I.T.A. NO.1899/AHD/2011 ( ( )( ( )( ( )( ( )( / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1999-2000) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(1) AHMEDABAD / VS. GAYATRI DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. NR.CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA NR.ANUPAM CINEMA KHOKHRA, AHMEDABAD '* ! $./+, $./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACGS 453 C ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.TIRKEY SR.DR ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : MS.ARATI SHAH, AR 2 1 ! / / / / DATE OF HEARING 26/06/2014 34) 1 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/06/2014 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-VIII, AHMEDA BAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 02/05/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR (AY) 1999- 2000. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE PENALTY OF RS.9,80,001/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.27,41,660/- W AS SUSTAINED AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME NOT DISCLOSED IN RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.1899/AHD /2011 ITO VS. GAYATRI DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 - 2 - 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION OF RS .28 LACS AND ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE AO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.9,80,001/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED . NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL WI THOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN DE LETED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS HIGHLY IMPROPER ON THE PART OF THE REV ENUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WERE DELETED BY THE COOR DINATE BENCH (ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN ITA NO.487/AHD/2004 FOR ASS T.YEAR 1999- 2000, VIDE ORDER DATED 30/04/2010. THIS FACT IS NO T DISPUTED BY THE LD.SR.DR. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY LEV IED ON THE BASIS OF ITA NO.1899/AHD /2011 ITO VS. GAYATRI DAIRY PRODUCTS P.LTD. ASST.YEAR 1999-2000 - 3 - ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, SAME I S HEREBY REJECTED. 5. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE REQUIRE N O INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( ) ( %) ! ' ' ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 06 /2014 8.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9) 5 1 .9 : 9)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $$ ; / CONCERNED CIT 4. ;() / THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. 9%< . , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <=( >2 / GUARD FILE. 5 5 5 5 / BY ORDER, /9 . //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // / $+ $+ $+ $+ ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 26.6.14(DICTATION-PAD 4-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.6.14 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 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.6.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.6.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER