The ITO, Ward- 9(4), Surat V. M/s. Sahir Construction, Surat

ITA 2309/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0890 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ADITYA SHUKLA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ITA. NO.2309/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998-99) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4), ROOM NO.419, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURAGATE, SURAT APPELLANT VS. M/S. SAHIR CONSTRUCTION, 11/2462-B, FIFTH FLOOR, NAZRANA APARTMENT, TURKIWAD, SURAT 395003 RES PONDENT PAN: ABEFS3851N /BY APPELLANT : SHRI ADITYA SHUKLA, SR. D.R. /BY RESPONDENT : WRITTEN SUBMISSION ! '# /DATE OF HEARING : 14.07.2016 ! '# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.07.2016 ORDER ITA NO.2309/AHD/13 A.Y. 98-99[ITO VS. M/S. SAHIR CO NSTRUCTION] PAGE 2 PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, SURAT, D ATED 06.06.2013 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 ON FOLLOWING GROUND. [1] ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.17,15,000/- LEVIE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION POINTED OUT THAT QUANTUM ADDITION, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF PENALTY, HAS BEEN D ELETED BY ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH CAMP AT SURAT IN ITA NO. 1237/AHD/2007 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R: 11. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF FINDING DISCREPA NCY IN THE EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THERE ARE SOME DISCREPANCIES IN EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SO LONG AS THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LERNED CIT(A) THAT INCOME WAS ERNED OR THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE YEAR IN APPEAL, THE ADDITION IS NOT CALLED FOR. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBA I TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA, WE DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 49 LAKHS AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 2.1 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO MY KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM OF THE V IEW THAT SINCE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED, SO , THE ORDER OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM MY SIDE, WHEREIN ITA NO.2309/AHD/13 A.Y. 98-99[ITO VS. M/S. SAHIR CO NSTRUCTION] PAGE 3 CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN QUESTION. I UPHOL D THE SAME. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19/07/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- () * / REVENUE 2) / ASSESSEE -)./.01! 2! / CONCERNED CIT 4) 2!- / CIT (A) 5)67 8!019 '019: / / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ;)8 <=> ? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 9 /: .* '019: /