The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Satadhar Enterprises, Vapi

ITA 2355/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9128 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N L AGARWAL
• Section: 271D

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA.NO.2355/AHD/2009 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2003-2004] ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE VAPI. VS. M/S.SATADHAR ENTERPRISES CHANDRALOK SHOPPING COMPLEX NR.CINE PARK MULTI-COMPLEX VAPI SILVASSA ROAD CHANOD, VAPI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.L.AGARWAL O R D E R G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-II, AHMEDABAD DATED 23.04.2009 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.8,00,000/- WHICH WAS LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER S ECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y .2002-2003 VIDE ITA NO.2353/AHD/2009 DATED 17-9-2010. IN THE SAID ORDE R THE ITAT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAD CANCELLED THE PENALTY L EVIED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ITAT READS AS UNDER: ITA.NO.2355/AHD/2009 -2- 8. HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT I CIT VS. KAILASH TRIPLE STERLISED WATER (CHENNAI) (P) LTD., (2008) 215 CTR 198 (MAD) HELD THAT IF CASH WAS RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AS TRADE CREDIT, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271D. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY HON. MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD. 285 ITR 221 (MAD) AND CIT VS. RUGMINI RAM RAV SPINNERS P. LTD., (2008) 304 ITR 417( MAD). HON. MP HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. INDORE PLASTICS P. LTD., (200 3) 262 ITR 163 (MP) ALSO HELD THAT WHERE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE BY WAY OF DEPOSIT OR LOAN BUT TOWARDS ADJUSTMENT OF THE AMOUN T DRAWN THEN IT WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN CANCELLI NG THE PENALTY. ADMITTEDLY, THE FACTS OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN A.Y.2002-2003. WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE ITAT, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, UPHOLD THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 4. IN RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 TH DECEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 14-12-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD