M/S. Aradhana Textile Mills, Ahmedabad V. THE Income tax Officer,Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3104/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67967 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID SR D R
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .. . . .. . , , , , '# ' $ '# ' $ '# ' $ '# ' $ BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3104/AHD/2010 ( & ' (' & ' (' & ' (' & ' (' / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1993-94) M/S.ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS 299, VATVA ISANPUR ROAD NR.JAGDISH FACTORY NAROL, AHMEDABAD & & & & / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(4) AHMEDABAD ) '# ./*+ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACFA6598B ( ), / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( -.), / RESPONDENT ) ), / ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR -.), 0 / ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.P.JHANGID, SR.DR &1 0 # / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 02/12/2013 23( 0 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/12/2013 '4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDAB AD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 16/09/2010 PERTAINING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR (AY) 1993- 94. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 FOR THE A.Y. 1993-94 ON 16 .09.2010 BY CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, PARTLY CONFIRMING THE PENALT Y LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- IS WHOLLY ILLEGA L, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.3014/AHD /2010 M/S.ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1993-94 - 2 - 1.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERI NG FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND EVIDENCE PR ODUCED BEFORE HIM. 2.1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN THE RENT AL INCOME. 2.2. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE RENTA L INCOME WAS NOT SHOWN IN INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON IT . 3.1. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD NOT CONCEALED THE RENTAL INCOME BUT IN THE QUANTUM APPE AL, IT WAS JUST DIRECTED TO CHANGE THE HEAD OF INCOME WHICH DO ES NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). 3.2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE APPEL LANT HAD FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE REBY CONCEALED INCOME IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED WI TH REFERENCE TO ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- ON RENTAL INCOME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER PASSED AN ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.1,89,056/-. THE ASSESS EE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A). THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED ON ADDITION OF RS.3,50,0 00/-, HOWEVER CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- IN RESPECT OF 1/5 TH RENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT I N QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- H AS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE HONBLE ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.968/AHD/ 2009 FOR AY 1993-94 TITLED AS ITO VS. M/S.ARADHANA TEXTILE MIL LS VIDE ORDER DATED 13/05/2011 FOR FRESH DECISION. ON THE CONTRARY, L D.SR.DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT. ITA NO.3014/AHD /2010 M/S.ARADHANA TEXTILE MILLS VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 1993-94 - 3 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.968/AHD /2009(SUPRA) HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.72,000/- TO TH E FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTE D BY THE LD.SR.DR OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS APPEAL BACK TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL A FRESH CONSEQUENT TO DECISION IN QUANTUM APPEAL. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/ - ( .. ) ( ) '# ( T.R. MEENA ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02 /12 /2013 ..&, .&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7( '4 0 -7 8'7(/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ), / THE APPELLANT 2. -.), / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 7: -& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :;' <1 / GUARD FILE. '4& '4& '4& '4& / BY ORDER, .7 - //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / * * * * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD