Smt. Pulluguru Sunderraj Sarvani, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-12(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1928/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6821 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-04-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2011
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROBIN RAVAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Set aside
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND N. S. SAINI, AM) ITA NO.1928/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 1998-99 SMT. PULLUGURU SUNDERRAJ SARVANI, C/O. SHREE KRISHNA PROCESSORS, RAM KUMAR MILL COMPOUND, SARASPUR, AHMEDABAD VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 12 (1), AHMEDABAD PA NO. AKIPS 9250 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ROBIN RAVAL, SR. DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)- X VII, AHMEDABAD DATED 26 TH MARCH,2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, CHALLENGIN G THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C) OF THE IT ACT. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT, IT WAS FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.2,00,000/- AND RS.4,11,000 /- IN CASH IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NAMELY FLAT NO.202, NAYAN COMP LEX, BEHIND JHANAVI RESTAURANT, AHMEDABAD APART FROM OTHER AMOU NTS PAID BY CHEQUES AS WELL FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF RS.6,11,000/-, THEREFORE, IT WAS CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY A ND ADDITION WAS ITA NO.1928/AHD/2009 SMT. PULLUGURU SUNDERRAJ SARVANI VS ITO W-12(1), AH MEDABAD 2 ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY WAS IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE AFORESAID AMOUNT VIDE SEPARATE ORDER. LEARNE D CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT AH MEDABAD B BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE SAME ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 1 650/AHD/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND ITA NO.1644/AHD/206 6 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 VIDE ORDER DATED 09-04-2010 AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE BEEN D ELETED. COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-04-2010 IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITION IS DELETE D, THEREFORE, PENALTY WOULD NOT SURVIVE. THE LEARNED DR ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CONCEDED THAT THE ADDITION ON MERIT HAS BEEN DELETED. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY. SINCE THE QUA NTUM ADDITION IS DELETED, THEREFORE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE SAME AMOUNT. SINCE THE FOUNDATION OF THE PENALTY HAS GONE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO LEVY PENALTY. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY. ITA NO.1928/AHD/2009 SMT. PULLUGURU SUNDERRAJ SARVANI VS ITO W-12(1), AH MEDABAD 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21-04-2011 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 21-04-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD