Karnavati Car Air-Conditioners(P) Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2837/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 283720514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2837/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 KARNAVATI CAR AIR- CONDITIONERS (P) LTD., AHMEDABAD. V/S . I.T.O. WARD-4(2), AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AABCK - 9145 - L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT NONE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 15.05.2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.05.2012 O R D E R PER : D.K.TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)- VIII, AHMEDABAD, DATED 15.09.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A), CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF A.O., IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(B) OF THE ACT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WA S RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AS NO COGENT REASON WAS GIVEN IN THE ADJ OURNMENT APPLICATION, THE SAME WAS REJECTED AND WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL AFTER HEARING LD. D.R. ITA NO. 2837/AHD/2011 A.Y.2007-08 PAGE 2 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IMPOSING A PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTER IN THE MATTER OF TIMELY SUBMISSIONS OF RE QUISITE DETAILS/INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE A SSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE ACCORDINGLY VIDE THIS OFFIC E LETTER DATED 28 TH JULY, 2009. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT T HE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SHOW CASE LETTER ISSUED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY AND WITHOUT A NY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 143(2) /142(1) OF THE ACT BY NOT FURNISHING REQUISITE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS/CLAR IFICATION ETC., AS PER RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT TRAVANCORE A GENCY VS. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455. HENCE, PENALTY OF RS. 50,000/-(RS.10, 000/- FOR EACH DEFAULT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) IS HEREBY LEVIED U/S. 2 71(1)(B) OF THE ACT. 3. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRM ED BY LD. CIT (A). 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSING THE RECO RD, WE FIND THAT PARAGRAPH NOS. 2,3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WO ULD READ AS UNDER:- 2. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED, SHRI SHAISHA V D MEHTA, C.A., DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME, CO PY OF STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT, TAX AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER RELATED PAPERS B ESIDES THE DETAILS AS ITA NO. 2837/AHD/2011 A.Y.2007-08 PAGE 3 CALLED FOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE KEPT ON RECORD AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING, REPAIRING AND FITTING OF CAR AIR CONDITIONERS. DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SHOWN TOTAL SALE OF RS. 24481390/- EXCLUDING DIRECT INCOME OF RS. 639611/- IN COMPARISON TO PRECEDING YEAR SALE OF RS. 23097648/-. 4. WITH THE ABOVE REMARKS AND ON THE BASIS OF DETAI LS AVAILABLE WITH THE RETURN, BESIDES, DETAILS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142 (1) OF THE ACT, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y IS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- TOTAL INCOME AS PER STATEMENT OF INCOME RS. 2990 50/- TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME RS. 299050/- 5. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNIS HED THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT AND ON THE BASIS OF THOSE DETAILS, THE INCOME SHOW N BY HIM WAS ACCEPTED. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS UNDISPUTED FACT OF THE CASE, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES SERVED UPON HIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( B) DO NOT MAKE IT COMPULSORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY IN SUCH CASES OF TECHNICAL LAPSE AS THE WORD USED ARE MAY DIRECT FOR IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY. SINCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCRETION IN THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED ITA NO. 2837/AHD/2011 A.Y.2007-08 PAGE 4 OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXER CISED HIS JURISDICTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE PENALTY, AS THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR SUCH IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A) IS HEREBY DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ( D.K. TYAGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ; STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 16.05.2012 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE XXXX 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 17.05.2012 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 17.05.2012 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 18.05.2012 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 18.05.2012 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 8) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 18.05.2012 ITA NO. 2837/AHD/2011 A.Y.2007-08 PAGE 5