Smt. Sharmila Singhvi, JODHPUR V. DCIT, JODHPUR

ITA 32/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5291 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.28/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. VINOD SINGHVI, HUF C/O. U. C. JAIN, ADVOCATE, HARI SINGH NAGAR, PALI ROAD, JODHPUR (RAJ.) PAN :AADHV8791E VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A.NO.32 & 33/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 & 2008-09 SMT. SHARMILA SINGHVI, C/O. U. C. JAIN, ADVOCATE, HARI SINGH NAGAR, PALI ROAD, JODHPUR (RAJ.) PAN :ABSPS1170Q VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 11.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : ITA NO.28/JODH/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), BIKANER PASSED IN APP EAL NO.133/BIKANER/2010- 11 DATED 24-12-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF M/S.VINOD SINGHVI HUF, ITA NO.32/JODH/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. SHARMILA SINGHVI AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT (A) PASSED IN APPEAL 2 ITA NO.28, 32 & 33/JODH/2015 NO.116/10-11 DATED 24-12-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 AND ITA NO.33/JODH/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE SMT. SHARMILA SINGHVI AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) PASSED IN APPEAL NO.115/10-11 DATED 24-12-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. AS AL L THESE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN CONFIR MING PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271A OF THE ACT ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF M/S. VINOD SINGHVI GROUP OF CASES. IT W AS A SUBMISSION THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO COMPLETED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A AND 144 OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE DIRECTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED THE COMPUTERI ZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE AO IN HIS PEN ALTY ORDER. THE SUPPORTING VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE EXPEN SES WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE LEARNED AO HELD THAT THE BOOKS WERE MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE VOUCHERS AND CONSEQUENTLY HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAIL ED TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS REQUIRED U/S 44AA OF THE ACT AND CON SEQUENTLY HE LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271A OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION BY THE LEARNED AR THAT IN ALL 3 ITA NO.28, 32 & 33/JODH/2015 THE THREE CASES THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED U/ S 44AA OF THE ACT HAD BEEN MAINTAINED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE PENAL TY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS LIAB LE TO BE DELETED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAVING NEITHER PRODUCING THE VOUCHERS NOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TH E PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS L IABLE TO BE SUSTAINED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA (2) (I) OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT EVERY PERSON CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WHOSE INCOME EXCEEDS RS.1,20 ,000/- OR TOTAL SALES, TURNOVER OR GROSS RECEIPTS, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN BUSINESS OR PROFESSION EXCEED OR EXCEEDS RS.10 LAKH IN ANY ONE OF THE THRE E YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL KEEP AND MAINTAIN SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AS MAY ENABLE THE AO TO COMPUTE HIS TOTAL INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT. A PERUS AL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN ALL THE THREE CASES SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND HAS MADE FURTHER ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE U /S 153C OF THE ACT AND RESTORED THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED ON THE GROUND TH AT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH WHICH WARRANTED COMPLETIO N OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 4 ITA NO.28, 32 & 33/JODH/2015 153C OF THE ACT. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER LE VYING PENALTY U/S 271A OF THE ACT BY THE AO SHOWS THAT COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED. THE AO MENTIONED THAT NO SUPPORTING VOUCHERS WERE P RODUCED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT ONLY A FEW VOUCH ERS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS TH AT THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REJECTED AND THE GROSS PROFIT RAT E HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN ANY CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAVING DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A/144 OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271A OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AND C ONSEQUENTLY, WE DELETE THE SAME. AS A RESULT, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271A OF T HE ACT BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN ALL THE THREE A PPEALS STANDS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 11 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - 5 ITA NO.28, 32 & 33/JODH/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 14.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 14 .03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 14.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 14.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT NA SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER