M/s Vijay Glass Works, Firozabad V. I.T.O.-5(2), Firozabad

ITA 296/AGR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 29620314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVIN GARGH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 296/AGRA/2012 ASSTT. YEAR : 1991-92 M/S. VIJAY GLASS WORKS, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, STATION ROAD, FIROZABAD. 5(2), FIROZABAD. (PAN: AABFV 1129 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NAVIN GARGH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 21.12.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, AGRA DATED 01.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991- 92, CHALLENGING THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF T HE IT ACT. 2. THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT OF RS.1,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BEING INVESTMENT IN BANK DRAFTS, LOANS AND DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS, SHR I JAI KISHORE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED PART RELIEF AND ON FURTHER APPEAL TO THE TR IBUNAL, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,70,767/- STOOD CONFIRMED AND ON THAT THE AO LEVIED PENALTY VIDE SEPARATE ITA NO. 296/AGRA/2012 2 ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE PENALTY ORDER BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS MADE WHICH IS INCORPORATED I N THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING REASONS FOR CONFIRMING THE PE NALTY MERELY STATED IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER THAT SINCE THE TRIBU NAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,70,766/-, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSES SEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ALONG WITH SEVERAL CASE LAWS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS FOR DECISION, CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THEREFORE, MATTER RE QUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR DID NOT OPPOSE THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTI ES IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDING TO SECTION 250(6 ) OF THE IT ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) IS BOUND TO PASS REASONED ORDER AND SHALL HAVE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY REPRODUCING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT SINCE ADDI TIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. SUCH APPROACH OF ITA NO. 296/AGRA/2012 3 THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW ABOVE. IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE AL TOGETHER DIFFERENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON QUANTUM MAY BE RELEV ANT FACTOR AND HAVE A PROBATIVE VALUE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PENALTY MA TTER, BUT THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE HIM AND SHALL HAVE TO PASS THE REASONED ORDER WHILE DEC IDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO REASONS FOR DECISION HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN TH E APPELLATE ORDER, WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS GIVING REASONS FOR DECISION IN THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE LD . CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AS SESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY