DCIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Ridge Housing India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 1950/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97501 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NANDITA KANCHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL MATHUR ITP

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT SUCHITRA KAMBLE , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.- 1950/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2008-09) DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 FARIDABAD (APPELLANT) VS RIDGE HOUSING INDIA PVT. LTD. A-16/B-1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI AADCR3225N (RESPONDENT) C.O .NO.-13 5/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2008-09) RIDGE HOUSING INDIA PVT. LTD. A-16/B-1 MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI AADCR3225N (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 FARIDABAD (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. NANDITA KANCHAN CIT (DR) RESPONDENT BY SH. SUNIL MATHUR, ITP ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM DATE OF HEARING 01.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07 .10.2015 THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CO IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DATED 17/01/2013 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) -I, GURGAON. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1950/DEL/2013 ARE AS F OLLOWS:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.5,03,610/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE AN RELIABLE AND AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A)?. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.5,0 3,610/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 ESPECIALLY WHEN:- A) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH TH E GENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. B) FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES CONCERNED. C) FAILED AUTHENTICATE WHAT WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. D) FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE TRADING RESULTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT SHOWING THE RESULTS AS FREES FROM BLEMISHES AND IN SUCH A SITUATION IT WAS DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, IT WOULD BE GENUINE 2. THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO THE ISSUE OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE SAME (ITA NO. 169/DEL/2011) IS DISMISSED IN LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 5599/DEL/2010) AND ACIT VS. PIYUS H DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 5706/DEL/2010) DATED 08.07.2015. 3. THE AR SUBMITTED AN ORDER DATED 8 TH JULY 2015 PASSED BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN ITA NO. 5599/DEL/2010 IN CASE OF SEARCHED PARTY I.E. PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., WHEREIN THE APPEAL OF PIYUSH DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND POINTED OUT THAT IN FACT THE GROUNDS CONTESTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR. 4. THE DR TOTALLY RELIED ON PENALTY ORDER BUT COULD NOT DIFFERENTIATE THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN PIYUSH DEVELOPERS CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RECORDS AND FOUND THAT THE ISSUE CONTESTED BEFORE THE ITAT IN THE PRE SENT CASE ARE COVERED BY PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. 6. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH OF OCTOBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 07 /10/2015 R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05.10.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05.10.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 06.10.2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 06.10.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 07 .10.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.