Soyuz Industrial Resources Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4749/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91244 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYANK JAIN; MADHUR JAIN

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.4749. DEL.14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO. -4749/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEA R-2002-03) SOYUZ INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD. B-3/58, SAFDARJUNG ENCLAVE NEW DELHI AAACS2339D (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-9(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH.MAYANK JAIN & SH. MADHUR JAIN, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. B. R. R. KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 20 TH JUNE 2014 PERTAINING TO 2002-03 ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREIN THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271 (1) (C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN UPHELD. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY ORD ER DATED 30 TH MARCH 2012 SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF RECEIVING SHARE CAPITAL/PREMIUM AMOUNTING TO RS.90,000,00/- FROM M/S. LAXMAN PRINTER PVT. LTD WAS A SHAM. THE ADDITI ON CHALLENGED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ITAT WAS QUASHED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22 ND AUGUST 2014 IN ITA 3853/DEL/2010. THE SAID DECISION IT WAS SUBMITTED WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN A CHALLENGE POSED BY THE REVENUE. VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 27 TH FEBRUARY 2015 IN ITA 158/2015. DATE OF HEARING 15.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT .06.2015 2 ITA NO.4749. DEL.14 ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. CONFRONTED WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND OF THE JURISIDCTIIONAL HIGH COURT. THE LD. SR. DR HAD NOTHING TO SAY. NO DISTINGUISHING FACT AND OR CIRCUMSTANCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER WAS CITED SO AS TO CANVASS A CONTRARY VIEW. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES WHERE THE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING STANDS QUASHED THE IMPUGN ED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. SUPPORT IS DERIVED FROM THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF K. C. BUI LDERS AND ANOTHERS VS. ACIT (2014) 265 ITR 562 (SC). IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OF JUNE 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINIA) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/06/2015 *R. NAHEED* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 ITA NO.4749. DEL.14 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 15.06.2015 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 19.06.2015 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS .05.2015 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK .05.2015 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.