The ITO, Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad V. Yeast Alco Enzymes Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 59/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2357 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-01-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH C CC C BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI, , , , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 12 1 2011 DRAFTED ON:12-1 -2011 I TA NO. 59 /AHD/ 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), 4 TH FLOOR, AJANTA COMMERCIAL CENTRE, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. YEAST ALCO ENZYMES LTD., 1 ST FLOOR DIVYA APARTRMENTS NR. MITHAKHALI UNDERBRIDGE, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. : AAACY 0844 K (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI DILIP KUMAR, SR. D. R. RESPONDENT BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD DATED 16-10-2008. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE I S THAT LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF `.2,23,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSE S. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 25% OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF `.24,29 ,799/- AND THEREBY DISALLOWED `.6,07,450/-. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY TH E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUN AL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 18-12-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.748 & 975/AHD/2007 HELD THAT LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE DIRECTOR HA S PASSED THROUGH THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT COMPLYING AND ACCORD INGLY RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER FOR GIVING AN PAGE 2 OF 3 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEN TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE CONFIRMA TION OF ADDITION BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) L EVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR `.2,23,200/- ON AC COUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D THAT THE AS TRIBUNAL, HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY SHOULD THEREFORE ALSO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS MADE SIMILAR SUBMISSIONS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE DI SALLOWANCE EXPENSES OF `.6,07,450/- THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE ISS UE. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE JUST AND FAIR TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) ALSO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE SE T ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. PAGE 3 OF 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( (( (MAHAVIR SI MAHAVIR SI MAHAVIR SI MAHAVIR SINGH NGH NGH NGH) )) ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD, 11 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2011. COMPILED AND COMPARED BY : PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)- 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11--01-2011 ------------- ------ 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 11-01-2011 --- ---------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 11-01-2011 --------- ---------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED 11-01-2011 -------- ----------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 11-01-2011 ------- ------------- 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 11-01-2011 ------- ------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- - --------------------