Shri Parag Rajnikant Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Addl. CIT, Range-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 458/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1622 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.458/AHD/2014 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.459/AHD/2014 1-2.PARAG RAJNIKANT SHAH C-1/2 GOYAL INTERCITY OPP. T.V. TOWER DRIVE-IN-ROAD AHMEDABAD-380 054 / VS. 1-2.THE ADDL.CIT RANGE 6 AHMEDABAD A-510, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN PANJRAPOLE AMBAWADI AHMEDABAD-380 015 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AFUPS 6960 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. CHAUDHARY, DR / DATE OF HEARING 05/05/2016 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10/05/2016 / O R D E R BOTH THESE APPEALS BY THE SAME ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS)- XI, AHMEDABAD IDENTICALLY DATED 03.12.2013 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2008-09; WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.3,5 9,000/- U/S.271D OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 (IN ITA 458/AHD/2014) AND OF PENA LTY U/S.2,80,000/- U/S.271E (IN ITA NO.459/AHD/2014) OF THE ACT. TH ESE APPEALS WERE ITA NOS.458 & 459/A HD/2014 PARAG RAJIKANT SHAH VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR(S) 2008-09 - 2 - HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL, IN ITA NO.458/AHD/ 2014 FOR AY 2008-09 AS A LEAD CASE, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER (AO) LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.3,59,000/- U/S.271-D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED LOAN/DEPOSIT IN CASH OF RS.3,59,000/- DURING FINANC IAL YEAR 2007-08. THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ACCEPTANCE OF CA SH WAS IN CONTRAVENTION OF SEC.269SS OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDIN GLY, PENALTY WAS LEVIED U/S.271-D OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY . 4. STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT CASH RECEIPT WAS GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY WAS NOT DO UBTED. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED LOANS AND DEPOSITS IN CASH WITHOUT ANY URGENT NEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUS INESS. IT IS SEEN THAT ON 1/4/2007 ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.50,000/- IN CA SH AND THE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ALKABEN BHARAT SHAH, WHO IS SISTER OF ASS ESSEE. FURTHER, LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN SH OWN TO BE FROM RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GET ESCAPE ROUTE FROM THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271-D OF THE ACT. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACC EPTING LOANS/DEPOSITS ITA NOS.458 & 459/A HD/2014 PARAG RAJIKANT SHAH VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR(S) 2008-09 - 3 - IN CASH AND, THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.3,59,000/-. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ON 1/4/2007 A SUM OF RS.50,000/- IN CASH AND THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ALKABEN BHARAT SHAH, WHO IS A SISTER OF ASSESSEE. TO THIS EXTENT, ADDITION U/S.271-D OF THE ACT ESTABLISHED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE FOR ASSESSEES BUSINESS PURPOSE BECAUSE THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE IN AN Y MATTER. ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT OTHER DEPOSITS WERE TAKEN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AS PER DETAILED PAPER-BOOK. THE LD.AR TOOK US THROU GH VARIOUS FACTS IN THE PAPER-BOOK (AT PAGE-2). THIS SUBMISSION DOES NOT FI ND ANY PLACE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE NEGATING THE REMAINING DEPOS ITS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. SO, LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT O F RS.50,000/- AND REST OF THE PENALTY IS HEREBY DELETED. AS A RESULT, ASSES SEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. ITA NO.459/AHD/2014 6.1. THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AS WERE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2014; WHEREBY THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRME D A PENALTY OF RS.2,80,000/- U/S.271-E OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. IN T HIS CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.50,000/- AS LOANS AND DEPO SITS IN CASH FROM ALKABEN BHARAT SHAH ON 1.4.2007. SINCE WE HAVE PA RTLY ALLOWED THE ITA NOS.458 & 459/A HD/2014 PARAG RAJIKANT SHAH VS. ADDL.CIT ASST.YEAR(S) 2008-09 - 4 - ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.458/AHD/2014, TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, IN THIS APPEAL ALSO ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- IS CONFIR MED AND REST OF THE AMOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10 MAY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JU DICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10 / 05 /2016 &.., .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ! ' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. /01 ((*+ , *+# , ) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 145 6 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 5.5.16 (DICTATION PA D+PAGES ATTACHED WITH THIS FILE ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 9.5.16 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 10.5.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 0.5.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER