Adarsh Steel Re-Rolling Mills, Panchmahal V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Surat

ITA 376/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 37620514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH J SHAH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.376/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 1997-1998] M/S.ADARSH STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS GIDC, DELSAR, TAH. DAHOD DIST. PANCHMAHAL PAN : AAEFA 6062 G /VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.2 BARODA. ( (( (*+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( (,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH J. SHAH ( 0 1 &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.DR 3 0 /4'/ DATE OF HEARING : 9 TH JUNE, 2014 567 0 /4'/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 4.7.2014 &8 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-1998 IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF 52 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION F OR CONDONATION OF DELAY ALONGWITH DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT, EXPLAINING THE REAS ONS FOR DELAY. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WITH R EGARD TO THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED DULY SWORN ITA NO.376/AHD/2011 -2- AFFIDAVIT THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE STAFF OF ITS COUNSEL, WHICH RESULTED IN DELAY OF 52 DAYS. IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND WE DIRECT ACCORDING LY. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION , THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1.19 CRORES AND THE SAME WAS REDUCED TO ONLY RS. 11,69,501/- AND THAT TOO BY WAY OF ESTIMATE ONLY, FOR WHICH NO PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) COULD BE LEVIED. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). THE TRADING ADDITION HAS BEEN R EDUCED FROM RS.1.19 CRORES IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION TO RS.11,69 ,501/- IN THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT. THE TRADING ADDITION ITSELF IS BY WAY OF ESTIMATE O NLY, FOR WHICH IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLO SED ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT, AND ITS EXPLANATION W AS BONA FIDE . ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT