Nanavati Motors, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-6, Surat

ITA 602/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1492 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO . 602 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 03 - 04 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND S S GODARA JM ] I.T.A. NO. 602 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 03 - 04 NANAVTI MOTORS .............. APPELLANT NEAR RAJHANS CINEMA OPP. RELIANCE T OWER PIPLOD, SURAT 395 007 . [PAN: A ACFN 1015 G ] VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 6 , SURAT. .......... . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: M.J. SHAH , FOR THE APPELLANT NARENDRA SINGH , FOR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING TH E HEARING : APRIL 8 TH , 201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : MAY 31 ST , 201 6 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : 1. THIS APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 3 - 04 . GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE , IN SUBS TA NCE, IS THAT THE LD . CIT ( A ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.8 7 ,500/ - IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UND E R SECT I ON 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT HEREINAFTER). 2. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF A N ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/ - REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED CUSTOMER DEPOSIT, BUT, WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR H E ARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO DOCUMENTS WHICH SHOW THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, ON 22.11.2005, THE CUSTOM ER IN QUESTION W A S SOLD ACCENT CAR, AND THE DEPOSIT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAME. I.T.A. NO . 602 /AHD/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 03 - 04 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT WHEN CUSTOMER I.E. SHRI B . H . GOHIL, WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE CAR, AND ADVANCE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAM E , THE DEPOSIT FOR THIS CAR PURCHASE C ANNOT BE S A ID TO BE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE AT LEAST FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4 . LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT DISPUTE THE LEGAL SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SUBMITS THAT ALL THESE FACTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5 . WE SEE MERITS IN LEARNED COUNSEL S PLEA. THE I NVOICE N O.3293/05 - 06 DATED 22.11.2005 DOES EVIDENCE SALE OF CAR, AGAINST THE ADVANCE OF RS.2,50,000/ - I.E. RELATED QUANTUM ADDITION . O N THESE FACTS, IT IS INDEED NOT A FIT C A SE FOR CONCEALMENT AND PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION FOR CUSTOMER DEPOSIT OF RS.2,50,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT . WE, THEREFORE , DELETE THE PENALTY . 6 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY , 2016. SD/ - SD/ - S S GODARA PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY , 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD