Shri Rameshbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel,HUF, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8)4), Surat

ITA 513/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6337 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: R N VEPARI
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2011 DRAFTED ON: 2 3/06/2011 ITA NO.513/AHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI RAMESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL-HUF LAXMIKANT ASHRAM ROAD KATARGAM, SURAT VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-8(4) SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAGHR 1500 L ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.N. VEPARI, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.L. YADAV, DR O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT DATED 24/11/2008 AND THE ONLY GROUND PERTAINED TO CONFIRMATION OF PENAL TY OF RS.70,500/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDI NG ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 15/12/2006 AND THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 DA TED 26/06/2007 WERE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, A QUERY WAS RAISED IN RESPECT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS.2,35,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER COMPLIANCE, THE SAME WAS TAXED BY INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION I S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING REPLY:- ITA NO.513/AHD/ 2009 SH.RAMESHBHAI B.PATEL-HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 2 - DATE : 21/6/2007 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-8(4),AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE, SURAT SUB : PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271[1][C] IN THE CAS E OF RAMESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI [HUF] FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02 REF : NOTICE U/S.271[1][C] DATED 05/06/07 DEAR SIR, WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE & UNDER THE INSTRUCTION FRO M OUR ABOVE REFERRED ASSESSEE WE ARE SUBMITTING HEREWITH FOLLOW ING DETAILS. SIR, YOU HAVE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.271[1][C] FOR WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE AS UNDER. SIR, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS WE AGREED FOR ADDITION OF RS.235000 IN ORDER TO AVOID PENALTY & BUY MENTAL PIECE, HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CONCEAL MENT OF ANY INCOME ON OUR PART. PLEASE REFER PARA-3 ON PAGE-3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER WHERE IN YOU HAVE STATED THAT IN RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER, WE HA VE NOT TAKEN ANY LOAN FROM ANY RELATIVES. SO IF ENTRY IS THERE, PLEASE A DD AND OBLIGE US. AS PER YOUR LETTER RS.235000/- IS LOAN AMOUNT, SO I AG REE TO ADD IT. SO IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE THAT WE HAVE NOT FURNISHED ANY INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HENCE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE THEREFORE REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY CONSIDER THE ABO VE FACTS & DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 2.1. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CONV INCED AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS AFFIRMED. 3. WITH THIS BRIEF FACTUAL BACKGROUND, WE HAVE HEA RD BOTH THE SIDES. THE ISSUE AS ALSO THE QUANTUM INVOLVED IS TRIVIAL IN NA TURE, THUS, KEEPING BREVITY IN ITA NO.513/AHD/ 2009 SH.RAMESHBHAI B.PATEL-HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 3 - MIND WE HEREBY HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCES P LACED IN THE COMPILATION IN THE SHAPE OF CONFIRMATION OF ALL THE PARTIES WITH T HE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS (PANS) AND WITH THE DETAILS OF RE-PAYMENT O F LOAN BACK TO THOSE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS I N POSSESSION OF THE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCES TO CORROBORATE HIS BONA FIDE. THEREFORE, THE SUBMISSION BEFORE US IS THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BUT IT WAS ASSESSEES MISFORTUNE THAT THOSE COGENT EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ACCEPTED AND SINCE THE CO NFIRMATION LETTERS ALONG WITH THE PANS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THEREF ORE, AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS HEREBY HELD UNJUSTIFIED WITH THE REMARKS THAT THIS JUDGEMENT SHALL HAVE NO CONSEQUEN TIAL EFFECT ON THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH NOW STOOD FINALIZED. GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24 TH JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL KR. SH RAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R AHMEDABAD; DATED 24 / 6 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. C IT(APPEALS)-V, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.513/AHD/ 2009 SH.RAMESHBHAI B.PATEL-HUF VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 4 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION..23/06/2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 23/06/2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S24.6.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 24.6.11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER