Shri Ashwinbhai Vrajlal Mehta, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Range-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 412/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9441 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.412/AHD/2014 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 SHRI ASHWINBHAI VRAJLAL MEHTA A/115, NILKANTH PARK SHOPPING CENTRE ST. XAVIERS LOYOLA HALL SCHOOL ROAD MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD. PAN : ACBPM 7577R VS ITO, RANGE-6 AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAIMIN SHAH, AR REVENUE BY : PRAJNA PARAMITA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 19/02/2016 $%/ O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AROSE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 2.21.2013 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-0 9. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW A ND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.30,000/- U/S 271D OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 2. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ACIT IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ITA NO.412/AHD/2014 2 3. THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE AND SU FFICIENT CAUSE, EVEN THOUGH WITHOUT CONSIDERING IT IN PROPER PERSPE CTIVE, THE PENALTY ORDER CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS SUCH THAT SUBSTANTIAL CASH AMOUNT IS REQUIRED ON HAND AND LOAN BORROWED AMOUNT ING TO RS.30,000/- IS GENUINE AND ACCEPTED BY LEARNED A.O BUT PENALTY U/S 271D MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAD TAKEN LOAN M CASH FOR WHICH THE APPELLANT IS HAVING REASONABLE CAUSE AND THEREFORE PENALTY LEVIED BY LEARNED A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A) BE CANCELLED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.30,000 UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BEING THE LOAN ACCEPTED IN CASH ON 15.12.2007 OF RS.15,000/- AND O N 25.1.2008 OF RS.15,000/- TOTALING TO RS.30,000/- WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD.AR THAT THERE IS A REASO NABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING THE CASH SINCE THE SAME WAS TO BE DEPOSIT ED IN BANK FOR FURTHER PAYMENTS. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS TIME BARRED, SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.7.2010 AND PENALTY N OTICE MUST HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON 30.7.2010 AND PENALTY SHOULD BE BEEN LEVI ED BY THE ORDER ON OR BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2011, WHEREAS THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON 20.2.2013, AND ACCORDINGLY, IT IS TIME BARRED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, MS.PRAJANA PARAMITA, LD.SR.DR ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH BALANCE OF RS.2,51,459/- ON 15.12.2007 AND RS.4,08,928/-ON 25.1.2008. THEREFORE, RAISING FURTHER LOAN OF RS.1 5,000/- ON EACH DATE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REASONABLE CAUSE. AS REGARDS, TIME B ARRED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 27.8.2012 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE PAGE NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), A ND PENALTY ORDER ACCORDINGLY SHOULD BE COMPLETED UPTO 31.3.2013, WHI CH IN FACT WAS PASSED ON ITA NO.412/AHD/2014 3 20.2.2013, AND WAS VERY MUCH IN TIME. SHE RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRIHALAKSH MI VISION VS. ACIT, ITA NO.83 AND 86 OF 2014 DATED 7.8.2015 WHERE IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION271D AND 271E CAN BE INITIATED BY JOINT COMMISSIONER ONLY AND THE LIMITATION PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS TO BE RECKONED FROM THE END OF MONTH OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS BY JOINT COMMISSIONER AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT OR DER. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.SR.DR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CA SH AS STATED BY HER, ON THE DATE OF RAISING OF LOAN, AND THEREFORE, THERE CANNO T BE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN OF RS.15,000/- EACH, AND ACCORDI NGLY, PROVISION OF SECTION 273B CANNOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS TIME BARRING PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN ISSUED NOTICE ON 27.8.2012, AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHO ULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED ON 31.3.2013, WHICH IN FACT WAS ON 20.02.2013. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.SR.DR, BY HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRIHALAKSHMI VISIONS (SUPRA) AND OUR FINDINGS HEREI NABOVE, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/02/2016