Sarojben Mahendrabhai Vora, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 231/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9197 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 231/AHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SAROJBEN MAHENDRABHAI VORA, 8/B, KALYAN SOCIETY, MITHAKHALI, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : AASPU 4291 Q VS ITO, WARD 10(4), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI ASHISH POPHARE, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 /01/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT IN COURT : 23/02/2 017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, A HMEDABAD DATED 07.11.2013 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.28,200/- IM POSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF FRESH CAPITAL. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED DETAILED SUBMISSION AT THE TIM E OF HEARING AND THE FRESH CAPITAL OF RS.47,000/- EACH CREDITED TO CAPITAL A/C ON 01.04.2008 AND THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS.94,000/- WAS ADDED BACK TO THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE AMOUNTS WERE THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE POS T OFFICE MIS. EVEN THOUGH AFTER FULL DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.94,000/-. FOR THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS.94,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) TO AVOID LITIGATION FOR SMALLNESS OF DEMAND AND FOR PEACE OF SMC-ITA NO. 231/AHD/2014 SAROJBEN MAHENDRA VORA VS. ITO AY :2009-10 2 MIND. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY TO THE NOTICE U/S 2 71(1)(C) ON 13.01.2012 CONTENDING THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT WAS OUT OF MATU RITY PROCEEDS OF THE POST OFFICE MIS; HOWEVER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.28,200/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 20.06.2012. 2.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) DREW ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM FOLLOWING FACTS:- I) THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE OF THE AR WAS HELD TO BE UN BELIEVABLE; II) RELIANCE ON LOCAL CUSTOMS AND HOLDING THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL; THE LD. CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 2.4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEN DS THAT THE LD. CIT(A), WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CON CLUSIONS ARE RIGHT. THUS, THE ASSESSEES WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS NOT BEEN CONS IDERED AT ANY LEVEL. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPL AINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE POST OFFIC E MIS AND THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAVING EXPLAINED THE SOURCE, WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THESE FACTS FROM POST OFFICE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN MADE. SMC-ITA NO. 231/AHD/2014 SAROJBEN MAHENDRA VORA VS. ITO AY :2009-10 3 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. I FIND MERITS IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A DETAILED REPLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CONTENDING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.94,000/- IS OUT OF MATURITY PROCEEDS OF THE POST OFFICE MIS. THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS DELETED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 23/02/2017 *BIJU T., SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD