The Jt. CIT, A'bad Range-14, Ahmedabad V. Shri Dattuprasad Manharlal Dave, Ahmedabad

ITA 3251/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9845 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 3251/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(1)(1), AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT VS DATTUPRASAD MANHARLAL DAVE, 13, TULSHIVRUND SOCIETY, NR. SUNFLOWER SCHOOL, MALAV TALAV ROAD, JIVRAJ PARK AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT PAN : AAQPD 9292 D REVENUE BY : SHRI RAKESH JHA , SR - DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA, AR / DATE OF HEARING 31/12/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/01/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, AHMED ABAD DATED 17.04.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUS E WHICH PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE FROM COMPLYING WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF 296T WHICH RESULTED IN LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271E OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO.3251/ AHD/2015 ITO VS. DATTUPRASAD MANHARLAL DAVE AY 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT TRANSACTION BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T OF THE I.T. ACT WILL GET IMMUNITY FROM THE PENAL PROVISION OF SECTION 271E OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING BAD IN LAW AND IN FACT IS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED IN TOTO. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT TH E REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL IN ITA NO.1816/AHD/2013 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10, WHICH WAS HEARD ON 07.12.2015, WHEREI N THE ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271E OF THE ACT WAS R AISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL. T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT DISPUTE THE SAM E. 2.1 I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT FOR AY 2009-10 HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS AP PEAL ITA NO.1816/AHD/2013 WHICH WAS HEARD ON 07.12.2015 AND THE SAME IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL; WHEREAS THE SAME ISSU E FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ONCE AGAIN RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. THUS, THE PRESENT A PPEAL HAS ITA NO.3251/ AHD/2015 ITO VS. DATTUPRASAD MANHARLAL DAVE AY 2009-10 - 3 - BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS BEING DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED BEING INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 06/01/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. #$% , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. %) / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !' , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD