Synergy Finlease Pvt. Ltd., V. ITO, Ward-7(4),

ITA 549/DEL/2006

• Counselvise Citation: 54920114 RSA 2006
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2006
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS MEETA SINH A
• Assessee Lawyers: R C RAI
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 549/DEL/2006 A.YR. 2000-01 SYNERGY FINLEASE PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , 401, XV/3198, 4 TH FLOOR, WARD 7(4), NEW DELHI. GALI NO. 1, SANGATRASHAN, PAHAR GANJ, NEW DELHI. PAN : ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C. RAI CA RESPONDENT BY : MRS. MEETA SINHA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER DA TED 28-11-2005, CHALLENGING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, RELATING TO A.Y. 2000-01. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUT SET CONT ENDS THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 4085/DEL/2004 VIDE ORDER DATED 30-5-2008 HAS SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 2 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF LEA RNED AR AND DR WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FI LED BEFORE THE BENCH UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1962. TH E SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE, IN THE INTEREST OF S UBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE, THE SAME DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. IN CA SE OF UDPLLC VS. ADDITIONAL DIT 108 ITD 186, HONBLE DELH I BENCH HELD THAT WHERE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WARE QUITE RELEVANT FOR DECISION OF THE ISSUE IN HAND, THE SAM E CAN BE ACCEPTED FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEAL, NOT ONLY TO ENABLE THE ITAT TO PRONOUNCE THE JUDGMENT BUT ALSO FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND BALANCED SHEET OF THE SHARE H OLDERS SO PRODUCED ARE VERY RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE IDENTIT Y AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE HOLDERS. THEREFORE, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE ACCEPT THE SAME AND MA TTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. LEARNED AR AND DR HAVE NO OBJECTION FOR SUCH RESTOR ATION OF THE APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO FILED. SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE BAC K TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE. 3. LD. DR IS HEARD. 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS T HE ADDITION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) D OES NOT SURVIVE. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29-11-2012. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29-11-2012. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 4