Shri Amrish Balvanbhai Pandya, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-10(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2112/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1365 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Wrong claim
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: S H RI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AMRISH BALVANTBHAI PANDYA, PROP. ADITYA GLASS, 21, LAVANYA SOCIETY, NEW VIKAS GRUH, VASNA, AHMEDABAD PAN:AFAPP2623M (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 10(1), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI V.K. SINGH , SR . D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI VIJAY RANJAN , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 05 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 06 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBE R : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 20 06 - 07 , AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 02 - 07 - 2012 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - XVI/ITO / WD. 10(1)/057/11 - 12 , PARTLY CONFIRMING PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2011, IN PRO CEEDINGS I T A NO . 2112 / A HD/20 12 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 6 - 07 I.T.A NO. 2112/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO AMRISH BALVANTBHAI PANDYA VS. ITO 2 UNDER SECTION 271(1 ) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THIS ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M /S ADITYA GLASS ENGAGED IN GLASS TRADING, MANUFACTURING AND MOLDING . HE FILED RETURN ON 18 - 12 - 2006 STATING INCOME OF RS. 2,80,050/ - . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 30 - 12 - 2008 COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 28,32,507/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS. HE INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ALLEGING CONCEALMENT AND FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THE CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELIEF QUA THE TWO ADDITIONS. FORMER ONE BEING THAT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS OF RS. 2,73,967/ - AS REDUCED TO RS . 1,44,630/ - U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. TH E LATTER ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME BY CREDIT ENTRY IN PERSONAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS RESTRICTED FR OM RS. 2,32,700/ - TO RS. 2,70,7 00/ - . IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY FORMING SUBJECT MATTER OF THE INSTANT APPEAL IS BASED ON THESE TWO ADDITIONS . 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESUMED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN QUESTION. HE REJECTED ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS TO CONCLUDE THAT HIS ACT AND CONDUCT AS RESULTING IN THE ABOVE STATED QUANTUM ADDITION AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THIS RESULTED IN THE IM PUGNED PENALTY BEING LEVIED AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,87,515/ - . THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE SAME AS PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS. I.T.A NO. 2112/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO AMRISH BALVANTBHAI PANDYA VS. ITO 3 5. BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATE THEIR RESPECTIVE P LEADINGS AGAINST AND IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. FACTS NARRATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS ARE NOT REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. SUFFICE TO SAY, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES PENALIZE THE ASSESSEE QUA SECTION 69 AND 68 ADDITIONS OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND CREDIT ENTR Y IN PE NAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF R S. 1,44,630/ - AND RS . 2,17,700/ - ; RESPECTIVELY. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) QUANTUM ORDER GRANTED RELIEF TO ASSESSEE TO BE TUNE OF RS. 1,29,337/ - AND RS. 15,000/ - RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN HIS PENALTY ORDER THAT THE FORMER ADDITION AROSE IN CASE OF A JOINT ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE T HEREIN THAT ONE SHRI PRADEEP SEV AK HAD DEPOSITED RS. 1 LACS AND SOURCE OF CHEQUE DEPOSIT OF RS. 40,000/ - . THE REMAINING SUM OF RS. 460/ - IS INTEREST CREDITED THEREUPON. SIMI LAR IS THE CASE OF LATTER ADDITION. THE APPLICANT CLAIMED THE SUM IN QUESTION OF RS. 2,17,700/ - AS ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS WITHOUT PLACING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. OUR VIEW IS THAT THE PRESENT ONE IS NOT A CASE OF ALTOG ETHER A FALSE CLAIM SO FAR AS A SSESSEE S EXPLANATION TENDERED ATTRIBUTING SOURCE OF THE ABOVE STATED DEPOSITS IS CONCERNED. RATHER IT IS AN INSTANCE WHEREIN HE FI LED TO PROVE SHRI SEVAK S DEPOSITS QUA FORMER ADDITION AND CUSTOMER S LIST PERTAINING TO THE LATTER ADDITION. WE QUOTE SETTLED LAW OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC) SETTLING THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY ARE SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS AND EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE /ADDITION MADE IN FORMER CASE DOES NOT NECESSARILY RESULT IN IMPOSING CONC EALMENT PENALTY TO CONCLUDE I.T.A NO. 2112/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PAGE NO AMRISH BALVANTBHAI PANDYA VS. ITO 4 THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN PENALIZING THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCEPT HIS ARGUMENTS . THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS DELETED. 6. THIS ASSSESSEE S APPEAL SUCCEEDS. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 16 - 06 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 16 /06 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,