M/s. M.M. Builders, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Surat

ITA 2694/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9941 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAVIN KUMAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2694/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S M M BUILDERS, PRACHI APARTMENT, CITYLIGHT ROAD, SURAT PAN : AAIFM 3360 R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), SURAT / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/11/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, SU RAT DATED 27.09.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARTLY CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.4,12,163 /- OUT OF RS.15,83,530/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE Q UANTUM ADDITION WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITA T AND THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.11.2014 IN ITA NO.2921/AHD/2010 SET ASIDE THE SAME BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- ..BEFORE US LD. A.R. HAD ALSO RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT BUT WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO FIN D OF EITHER A.O OR CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DECISIONS. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONE M ORE OPPORTUNITY AND ALSO TO DEMONSTRATE THE SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS. WE THEREFOR E REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF A.O TO GIVE A FACTUAL FINDING AND TO DECIDE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE SMC-ITA NO. 2694/AHD 2013 M M BUILDERS VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 2 THAT A.O SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 3.1 IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO HAS INITIATED SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT STANDS SET ASIDE, THE PENALTY I N QUESTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. 4. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS HEARD. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION FROM WHICH THE IMPUGNED PENA LTY AROSE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE, THE PENALTY IN QUESTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) STANDS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/11/2016 *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