Smt. Lataben R. Baraiya, Bharuch V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-3, Bharuch

ITA 2351/AHD/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 137 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0170 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2010
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD DBENCH BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2351/AHD/2006 [ASSTT.YEAR:2000-01] LATABEN R BARAIYA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BHUPENDRA C MEHTA, ADVOCATE WARD( 3) BHARUCH 15, AJANTA NAGAR, OPP. 288 SIDHNATH NAGAR, BHARUCH-392001 PAN NO.ADEPB5155E REVENUE BY: SHRI C.K. MISH RA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MEHUL K P ATEL, AR DATE OF ORDER RESERVED: 07/01/10 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, BARODA IN APPEAL NO.CAB/VI -113/06-07 DATED 18-08-2006. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD-3, BHARU CH U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25-03-2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THE PENALTY UNDER DISP UTE WAS LEVIED BY THE ITO, WARD-3, BHARUCH U/S.271(1) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 29-03.2006. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3918/AHD/2004 VIDE ORDER DATED 20-10-2009 AND HE REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING PARA-4 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER:- 4. IN THESE APPEALS ONE OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE WAS NOT ALLOWED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY IN RESPECT O F THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE JCIT UNDER SECTION 144A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK VERMA VS DCIT (2008) 22 SOT 345 (DELHI) WHICH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT TIME OF THE HARING LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO.2351/AHD/2006 A.Y. 2000-01 LATABEN R BARAIYA V. ITO WD(3) BHARUCH PAGE 2 REPRESENTATIVE ADMITTED THAT IT SHALL BE FAIR AND I N THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AF ORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED DIRECTIONS. THUS ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE QUAN TUM APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THIS PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S./271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WILL NOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN CASE HE FINDS THAT IF THERE IS CONCEALMENT IN THIS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 18 TH JANUARY 2010 SD/- SD/- (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) (MAHAVIR S INGH) (VICE PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 18/01/2010 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD