The ITO, Ward-5(3), Ahmedabad V. Raj Roadways Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 3362/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76633 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JHANGID

Judgement Text

, , , , C, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, C BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3362 AND 3363/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 1996-1997 AND 1997-1998] ITO, WARD-5(3) AHMEDABAD. /VS. M/S.RAJ ROADWAYS P. LTD. 17, AMBICA NAGAR SOCIETY OPP: GITA PROCESS ISANPUR, AHMEDABAD. PAN : AAACR 9245 B ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) + 1 2 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JHANGID, SR.DR 4& 1 2 )/ ASSESSEE BY : NONE 5 1 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 678 1 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-04-2014 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT : THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-1997 AND 1997-1998 AR E DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INV OLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER: 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE-APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT IN SPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE BY THE REV ENUE. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ON MERITS EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. ITA NO.3362 AND 3363/AHD/2010 -2- 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 4. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE TRANSPO RT INCOME AT THE RATE OF RS.3,000/- PER TRUCK PER MONTH, WHICH WAS REDUCED B Y THE CIT(A) TO RS.2200/- PER MONTH PER TRUCK, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES THEREIN, AND THEREFORE, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WAS QUIT E JUSTIFIED. HE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND HAS PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND DUE TO CERTAIN DISCR EPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WERE REJECTED AND THE AO ESTIMAT ED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.3,000/- PER TRUCK PER MONTH. THE CI T(A) HAS REDUCED THE SAME BY WAY OF ESTIMATION AT RS.2,200/- PER TRUCK PER MO NTH AND HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME ACCORDINGLY. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION IN T HIS CASE HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS. IT IS WELL SETTLED THA T THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E COULD NOT BE LEVIED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATION OF CERTAIN INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN T HIS CASE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THESE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTR OVERTED BY THE REVENUE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY CONCEALED CERTAIN SUM OF INCOME DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE SE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY ITA NO.3362 AND 3363/AHD/2010 -3- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT EXIGIBLE IN THIS CASE AND IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN C IT VS. LALLUBHAI JOGIBHAI PATEL, 139 ITR 1028. ACCORDINGLY, THERE BEING NO M ERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, BOTH OF THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( .. /G.C. GUPTA ) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD