Mr. R.Radhakrishnan, Coimbatore V. Additional CIT, Coimbatore

ITA 365/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6524 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S PARAMASIVAM
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI A BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI A.M. I.T.A. NO. 365 / MDS/201 0 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 MR. R. RADHAKRISHNAN, NO.7, KANDASAMY LAYOUT, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE 641 004. . [PAN: A FD PR8831G ] VS. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, RANGE II, COIMBATORE 641 018. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. PARAMASIVAM REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M . TH IS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I, COIMBATORE DATED 18.12.2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WHEREBY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND TO THE EXTENT SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S. PRAMASIVAM, WHILE FILING A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (I), COIMBATORE UNDER SECTION 264 DATED 30.03.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 HAS PLEADED THAT HE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) ON 23.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS FRESH ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED IN THIS ORDER, PENALTY INITIATED AND IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AS THE VERY BASIS OF SUCH PENALT Y HA S SINCE I.T.A. NO . 365 /MDS/1 0 2 VANISHED AND THE LD. DR WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO CONCEDE WITH SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN SET ASIDE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE - FRAME IT FRESH AS PER ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (I) UNDE R SECTION 264 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE PENALTY WILL NOT SUSTAIN AND THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL CAN BE ACCEPTED. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(I) PA SSED UNDER SECTION 264 DATED 30.03.2011 AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 23.12.2008 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE LD. CIT(I) WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS FRESH ORDER ON THE LINES MENTIONED IN THE SAID ORDER. SO, THE BASIS FOR INITIATION AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS SINCE VANISHED, AS SUCH, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO THE EXTENT CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT SURVIVE. AS SUCH, WHILE ACCEPTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, WE QU ASH THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO THE EXTENT CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GETS ACCEPTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 25.05.2011. SD/ - SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25 . 0 5 .2011 VM/ - TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R .