The ACIT,Vapi Circle, Vapi V. Omnibus Industrial Development Corporation of Daman & Diu & DNH Ltd., Nani Daman

ITA 2085/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2298 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: YATENDRA BHARGAVA COM

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH D DD D BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING: DRAFTED ON: ITA NO S . 2085 & 2086 /AHD/ 2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2003-04 & 2004-05 ASSTT. CIT, VAPI CIRCLE, VAPI. VS. OMNIBUS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF DAMAN & DIU & DADRA NAGAR HAVELI LTD., NANI DAMAN (U.T. OF DAMAN & DIU) PAN/GIR NO. : AACO3361K (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY RAI, S R. D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI YATENDRA BHARGAVA, COMPANY SECRETARY. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINS T THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS), VALSAD, BOTH DATED 17.2.2010. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL A GAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ELETING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 2,08,303/- AND ` 2,03,345/- BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY . 3. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS A PUBLIC SECTOR UN DERTAKING AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE COD PERMISSI ON IN VIEW OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF ONGC VS. COLL ECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE (2004) 6 SCC 437 (SC). HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN SUCH PERMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED SUBJECT TO THE RIDER THAT THE REVENUE SHA LL BE AT LIBERTY TO MOVE - 2 - AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254 (2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE EVENT IT IS ABLE TO OBTAIN SUCH PERMISSION. 4. SUBJECT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ABOVE, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( T.K. SHARMA ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD, 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. COMPILED AND COMPARED BY : PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VALSAD. 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 21.1.11. ---------------- --- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 21.1.11. ------- ------------ 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 21.1.11. ------------- ------ JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 21.1.11. ------------ ------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 21.1.11. ---------- ---------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- ---- ---------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- - ------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- ---- -----------------