Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat, Surat V. Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat

ITA 292/SRT/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which had deleted a substantial penalty imposed on Sejal Jewellers Private Limited. The penalty was initially levied by the Assessing Officer based on an addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, which was later contested and deleted in a separate quantum appeal by the Tribunal. The Revenue's appeal to the Tribunal in this instance was primarily based on procedural grounds, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty without addressing the merits of the case, especially in light of an ongoing appeal against the Tribunal's earlier decision in the Gujarat High Court.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 302120 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2023
• Other Referred Cases: ITA No. 435/Ahd/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 292/SRT/2023 (AY: 2012-13) (Physical Hearing) A.C.I.T., Circle-2(1)(1), Surat. Vs. Sejal Jewellers Private Limited, UG-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. PAN No. AAQCS 8686 P Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Assessee represented by Shri Mehul Shah, C.A. Department represented by Shri S.M. Keshkamat, CIT-DR Date of Institution of Appeal 27/04/2023 Date of hearing 15/09/2023 Date of pronouncement 15/09/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 27/02/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1,62,71,168/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the Revenue has challenged the decision of Hon’ble ITAT dated 28/02/2022 in the quantum appeal and further appeal has filed before the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty Rs. 1,62,71,168/- without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. ITA No. 292/Srt/2023 ACIT Vs Sejal Jewellers P Ltd. 2 4. It is therefore prayed that the order of ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside that of the Assessing Officer be restored. ‘5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Rival submissions of both the parties heard and record perused. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the addition on the basis of which the penalty was levied by Assessing Officer has been deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 435/Ahd/2017 dated 28/02/2022. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty by following the decision of Tribunal, thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue is covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee also filed copy of decision of Tribunal in assessees appeal in quantum assessment in ITA No. 435/Ahd/2017 (supra). 3. On the other hand, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax- Departmental Representative (ld. CIT-DR) for the revenue supported the order of Assessing Officer and would submit that the order of the Tribunal may be a subject matter of appeal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, therefore, he fully supports the order of Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that the Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs. 5,01,81,940/- under Section 68 of the Act. On appeal in quantum ITA No. 292/Srt/2023 ACIT Vs Sejal Jewellers P Ltd. 3 assessment before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was upheld. However, on further appeal before the Tribunal, the entire addition was deleted vide order dated 28/02/2023 passed in ITA No. 435/Ahd/2017. We find that the ld. CIT(A) while granting relief to the assessee followed the order of Tribunal in ITA No. 435/Ahd/2017 (supra). The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue raised plea that the revenue may have challenged the order of the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. At this stage, we do not find any merit in the contention of ld. CIT-DR for the revenue, as the addition in the quantum addition, which was the basis of the penalty has already been deleted by the Tribunal, therefore, order of penalty will not survive and we affirm the order of ld. CIT(A). In the result, grounds of appeal raised by revenue are dismissed. 5. In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed. Order announced in open court on 15th September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat, Dated: 15/09/2023 *Ranjan Copy to: 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. CIT 4. DR By order 5. Guard File Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Surat