Shivcharanlal Sitaram, Balasore V. ITO, Ward-2, Balasore, Balasore

ITA 375/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 37522114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D K SHETH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI P. K. BABNSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 375 / CTK /2014 (ASST. YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 ) M/S. SHIVCHARANLAL SITARAM, MOTIGANJ, BALASORE . VS. ITO, WARD - 2, BALASORE. PAN NO. AAZFS 2974 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.K. SHETH A . R . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ANIL SHARMA - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 0 2 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 4 / 0 3 /201 5 . O R D E R PER D.T. GARASIA , J .M THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), BERHAMPUR DATED 2 5 /0 8 /201 4 FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 . 2. THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS GROUND NO.1, WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1. FOR THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED U/S. 271A OF THE I.T.ACT AT RS. 25,000/ - IS ARBITRARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND ILLEGAL. 3. SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS 2 PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM HAVE NOT BEEN SIGNED BY ANY OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM . HE, ACCORDINGLY SHOW - CAUSED THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR MAHAWAR. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW - CAUSE, THE PARTNER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HENCE, HE HAS NOT SIGNED. THEREFORE , ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 25,000/ - U/S. 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE 'ACT', FOR SHORT). 4 . THE MATTER WAS CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT AS T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS . LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED IN FORM NO. 3CD . B UT , DUE TO DISPUTE AMONG THE PARTNERS, IT WAS NOT SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS , THEREFORE NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED . 6. LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, BENCH HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION. THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING . LEARNED AR HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING . W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AUDITED REPORT WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT IT WAS NOT SIGNED BY ALL THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE - FIRM DUE TO DISPUTE AMONG THEM . IN OUR OPINION, PENALTY CANNOT BE IM POSED SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF NON - PRODU C TION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH SIGNATURES OF ALL THE PARTNERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT IT IS THE PECULIAR SITUATION WHEREIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED, WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT . T HEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S. 271A OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE OF RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH AT CUTTACK S D / - S D / - (P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 0 4 / 0 3 / 201 5 . VR/ - 4 COPY TO: 1 . THE APPELLANT 2 . THE RESPONDENT 3 . THE LD. CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., CUTTACK.