Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly V. M/s G. Surgiwear Limited, Shahjahanpur

ITA 624/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 62423714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHOK SETH

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.624/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008 - 09 M/S G. SURGIWEAR LIMITED, 352, RAM GIRI GANJ, SHAHJAHANPUR. PAN:AAACG7035J VS DY.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1, BAREILLY. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI K. C. MEENA, D. R. APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHOK SETH, C. A. RESPONDENT BY 18/11/2014 DATE OF HEARING 07 /01/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 01/05/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009. 2. IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELING THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 AND RIGHTLY IMPOSED AT RS.31,53,000/ - . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND FIGURES MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CONCEALMENT OF FACTS AND FIGURE IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ON 20.06.2012. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) BAREILLY IS ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS , THE TRIBUNAL HAS REVERSED 2 THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.295/LKW/2011 DATED 14/12/2011. HE SUBMITTED COPY OF TH I TRIBUNAL DECISION. HE POI NTED OUT OUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST LINE OF PARA 10 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS PARA THAT THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCED BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT SUFFICIENT, DISALLOWANCE MAY BE MADE BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND THEREFORE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION, MERELY BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT AND PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE DOCUMENTS PLAC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PRODUCTION WAS COMMENCED BEFORE THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL GOES TO SHOW THAT IT IS NOT AN ESTABLISHED CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E AND THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PRODUCTION HAS COMMENCED DURING THE PRESENT YEAR. UNDER THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED . HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 07 /01/2015. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR