Shri Ganeshmal Danmal Jain, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1), Surat

ITA 2562/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2109 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST IMPUGNED PASSED

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2562/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI GANESHMAL DANMAL JAIN, A/15, RAJU FLAT, KAILASHNAGAR, SANGRAMPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: ABNPJ 1959 K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT DATED 08.08.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: (1) THAT ON FACTS, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.48,824/-. (2) THAT ON FACT, AND IN LAW, THE ENTIRE PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED AS PRAYED FOR. (3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ASSESSEE BY SHRI MEHUL K.PATEL AR DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.P.RASTOGI SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2019 2 ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK WAS DETECTED IN WHICH THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.18,23,391/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION FOR PEAK IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT AS INVESTMENT IN THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE APART FROM GROSS PROFIT @10% WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,90,657/-. 4. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE IS ON ESTIMATION BASIS, NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE STATED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE ITAT, ESPECIALLY THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH (SPECIAL BENCH) GUJARAT CREDIT CORPORATION LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-4, AHMEDABAD [2008] 113 ITD 133 (AHD) (SB) THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AGAINST THE QUANTUM APPEAL, ASSESSEE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT @10% AND TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT DETERMINED AT RS.2,90,657/- AND PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 7. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE DECISION DATED 28.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE DESERVED TO BE DELETED IN VIEW OF THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION DATED 09.05.2008 WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19-07-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/07/2019 / GANGADHARA RAO.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PR.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT