M/s. Tayal Concast (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 520/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97140 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 01-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P CHANDREKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PREM PRAKASH; ASISH AGARWAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 52 0/DEL/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH:H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. 520/DEL /2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009- 10) TAYAL CONCAST (P) LTD., C/O PREM PRAKASH, ADVOCATE, 183/2, NORTH CIVIL LINES, MUZAFFARNAGAR. AABCT1327P VS ITO, WARD 2(3), MUZAFFARNAGAR. APPELLANT BY SH. PREM PRAKASH, ADV. & SH. ASISH AGARWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. J.P. CHANDREKAR, SR. DR ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT OF LD. CIT(A)S - MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 22.11.2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER IS AGAINST LAW & FACTS ON RECORD. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE B Y THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE POINT THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT STARTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO PENALTY NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE DATE OF HEARING 01.09.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.09.2015 2 ITA NO. 52 0/DEL/2014 ASSESSEE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 13.09.2009 A ND FIRST SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT. 03.12.2012 WAS ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT VALID. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN NOT CONSIDERING THE RU LING OF S.C. IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 230 CTR (SC) 320. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN MENTIONING THAT IN T HE CASE OF CASH CREDIT HELD TO BE BOGUS, ALTHOUGH DIS PUTE WAS ABOUT PENALTY OF CONCEALMENT U/S 271(1)(C). 2. AS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN QUANTUM APPEAL TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO. 5756/DEL/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 FOR ADJUDICATION IT AFRESH, VIDE OUR ORDER OF THE EVEN DATE, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS APPEAL ALSO FOR RECONSIDERATION TO T HE FILES OF THE LD.A.O. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02.09. 2015 SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (BEENA PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02/09/2015 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 3 ITA NO. 52 0/DEL/2014 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 01.09.2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 02.09.2015 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 02.09.2015 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 02.09.2015 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 02.09.2015 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 02.09.2015 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 03.09.2015 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.