Prithvi Singh Poonia, Baroda V. Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax,Range-2, Vadodara

ITA 3109/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8983 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

ITA NO . 3 10 9 / AHD / 201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO. 310 9 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 10 - 11 PRITHVI SINGH POONIA ..... .......... .APPELLANT C/O. NIRANJAN M. VAIDYA (ADVOCATE), C/105, PRESTIGE CO MPLEX, FIRST FLOOR, OPP. SURAJ PLAZA, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA 390 005. [PAN: A OJPP 8054 L ] VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE - 2, BARODA. .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: M.J. SHAH , FOR THE APPELLANT MADHUSUDAN , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 2 2.12 . 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 21 . 0 3 .2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 4 TH AUGUST 201 5 , PASSED BY T HE LEARNED CIT(A), UPHOLDING PENALTY OF RS.11 , 26 , 00 0/ - IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271 E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 . 2. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED MY AT TENTION TO H ON BLE SUPREME COURT S JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . JAI LA XMI RICE MILLS WHEREIN IT IS HE LD THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271E IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSING THE SAID PENALTY . COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH ITA NO . 3 10 9 / AHD / 201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 2 SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED. IT WAS SUBMISSION THAT FOR THIS SHORT REASON ALON E THE IMPUGNED PENALTY MUST STAND DELETED. 3. LD . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT DISP UTE THE FACTUAL ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN LEARNED COUNSEL S SUBMISSION BUT CONTENTS THAT IT IS NOT STATUTORY REQUIREMENT THAT RELEVANT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MUST BE INITIATED BY STATING THE SAME IN THE A SSESSMENT O RDER. WHEN HIS ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO HON BLE S UPREME COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAI LAXMI RICE MILLS (SUPRA), HE DID NOT HAVE MUCH TO SAY BEYOND PLACING HIS RELIANCE ON THE STAND SO TAKEN. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF T HE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. I FIND THAT IN THE A SSESSMENT O RDER THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT INITIATION OF ANY PENALTY PROCEEDING S IN CONNECTION WITH T HE IMPUGNED PENALTY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE H O N BLE SUPREME COURT S JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAI LAXMI RICE MILLS (SUPRA) I DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2017 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 21 ST DAY OF MARCH , 2017 . PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORD ER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD