Dr. Dharmendra P. Mehta, Morbi V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 53/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0478 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C S ANJARIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH RANPURA
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

ITA NO.5 3 / RJT/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, SMC , RAJKOT (CONDUCTED THROUGH E - COURT AT AHMEDABAD) [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] ITA NO. 5 3 / R JT / 2 0 1 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 1 - 02 DR. DHARMENDRA P. MEHTA ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT C/O. SHREEJI O RTHO HOSPITAL, NEAR OLD BUS STAND, MORBI. [PAN A CDPM 8857 C ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , ....... ..................RESPONDENT WARD 5(3), RAJKOT. APPEARANCES BY: HARISH RANPURA FOR THE A PPELLANT C.S. ANJARIYA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : NOVEMBER 30 TH , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : NOVEMBER 30 TH , 2015 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF TH IS APPEAL, THE ASSESSE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2014 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT ( A ) CONFIRMING PENAL TY OF RS. 85,736 / - IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT FOR SHORT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. 2. WHEN THI S APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LD. REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREED THAT WHATEVER IS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF D R. FALGUNI D. MEHTA IN ITA NO.52/RJT/2015 FOR A.Y. 2001 - 02 SHALL BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AS WELL. VIDE MY ORDER OF EVEN DATE I HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE CASE OF DR. FALGUNI D. MEHTA BY , INTER ALIA , OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: - ITA NO.5 3 / RJT/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001 - 02 PAGE 2 OF 2 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN REASONABLE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS AND EVEN THE PERSONS GIVING GIFTS WERE DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THE GIFTS HELD TO BE BOGUS ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. THE EXPLANATION WAS THUS AVAILABLE AND IT WAS NOT REJECTED, THOUGH IT WAS NOT FOUND SUFFICIENT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION SO FAR AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WAS NOT AT ALL A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY IS, THEREFORE, UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IN ANY EVENT, SINCE THE RELATED QUANTUM ADDITION ITSELF IS VACATED AND THE MATTER RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PENA LTY DOES NOT SURVIVE AT ALL. AS FOR THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE INITIATED AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF ORDER PASSED ON THE REMANDED PROCEEDINGS, THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS SOMEWHAT ACADEMIC IN THE PRESENT CASE. I LEAVE IT AT THAT. 3. I SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY ME IN THE ABOVE CASE. ACCORDINGLY , I DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 3 0 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2015 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT