Dr. Harinath Mahendrabhai Jha, Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

ITA 420/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6048 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR VARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS ARTI N SHAH

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.419, 420, 421 AND 422/AHD/2014 '( ) *+)/ ASSTT. YEAR: 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04 DR.HARINATH MAHENDRABHAI JHA AYURVED SANKUL AMBICA CHOWK B/H. NEW BUS STAND ANAND 388 001. PAN : ACDPJ 8390 D VS. ITO, WARD - 1 ANAND. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPONENT ) ASSESSEE BY : MRS.ARTI N. SHAH REVENUE BY : MR.SUMIT KUMAR VARMA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 02/05/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/05/2017 67/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: PRESENT FOUR APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE O F THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-IV, BARODA DATED 1 7.12.2013 PASSED IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.23,708/-, RS.29,720/-, RS. 39,144 AND RS.1,30,725 IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 BY THE AO IN THE ASSTT.YEARS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO.419/AHD/2014 (4 APPEALS) 2 3. MRS.ARTIBEN N. SHAH, LEARNED ADVOCATE FOR THE AS SESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS BY DISBELIEVING AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURE INCOME IN ALL THESE YEARS WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO . SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THIS TREATMENT AT TH E END OF THE AO IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), AND ULTIMATELY DISPUTE TRAVEL LED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE AND ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED WITH THE MATTER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS REQUESTING FOR ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES AND THOSE EVIDENCES HAVE A DIRECT BEARING ON THE ISSUE OF DET ERMINATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER T O ADMIT BUT TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. DUE TO THIS REAS ON, WE HEREBY RESTORE THIS GROUND BACK TO THE STAGE OF FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES NOW PLACED ON RECORD AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EVIDENCES AS PER LAW. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THIS GROUND IS HEREBY ALLOWED BUT FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. COPY OF TRIBUNALS ORDER PASSED IN ITA NOS.3766/AHD /2008 TO 3769/AHD/2008 IS PLACED ON RECORD. ON THE STRENGTH OF THIS ORDER, SHE CONTENDED THAT ADDITIONS ON WHICH PENALTIES WERE IM POSED HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR RE-ADJUDICATION, AND THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS FOR VISITING THE ASSESSEE WITH PENALTY HAS BEEN EXTINGUISHED. THE LD.DR WAS UNAB LE TO CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES, WE FIND THAT S UB- CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES MECHANIS M FOR QUANTIFICATION OF PENALTY. IT CONTEMPLATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD B E DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM IN ADDITION TO TAXES, IF ANY, PAYABLE HIM, WHIC H SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN , BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE A MOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FU RNISHING OF ITA NO.419/AHD/2014 (4 APPEALS) 3 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS DEPENDED UPON THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UPTO AND UNTIL, THE ISSUE REGARDING DETE RMINATION OF THE TAXABLE INCOME IS FINALIZED, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESEN T, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST QUANTUM A DDITIONS IN ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3766/AHD/2008 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 20.5.2011 HAS SET ASIDE ORD ERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE LD.CIT(A) FOR RECONSIDERATION AND ARE PENDING BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. U NLESS QUANTUM IS DECIDED, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW ALL APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AN D DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTIES. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND MAY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD- SD- ( MANISH BORAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER