Mrs. Vrajeshwari B. Parikh, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2), Baroda

ITA 2753/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9878 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITI SETH

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2753/AHD/2015 [ASSTT/YEAR 2008-2009] MRS.VRAJESHWARI B. PARIKH ARCHANA, ARPITA NAGAR SUBHANPURA, BARODA. PAN : AFKPS 2411 L. VS ITO, WARD-6(2) BARODA. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS.ADITI SETH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SHIV SEWAK, SR.DR ! / DATE OF HEARING : 11/01/2016 '#$ ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/01/2016 %& / O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-4, VADODARA DATED 1.6.2015 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008- 09. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING T O RS.60,925/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OU TSET, SUBMITTED THAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1512/AHD/2014. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.9.2015 HAS BEEN REPORTED IN (2015) 61 TAXMANN.COM 235 (AHMEDAB AD-TRIB.). SHE ITA NO.2753/AHD/2015 2 PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER. SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETE D, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTIO NS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GON E THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 271(1)(C) A ND CLAUSE (III) WOULD INDICATE THAT IF THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSO N CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THEN HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASONS OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT MEANS TH AT IF AN ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY TAX ON ANY ADDITION FOR WHICH HE CAN BE HELD THAT HE HAS EVADED THE TAX, ONLY THEN, PENALTY IS TO BE IMPOSED UPON H IM. THE ADDITION ON WHICH PENALTY COULD BE COMPUTED, HAS ALREADY BEEN D ELETED BY THE ITAT. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY AMOUNT ON WHI CH IT CAN BE ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO EVADE TAXES . I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/01/2016