The ITO, Ward-6(4), Ahmedabad V. Shree Ram Family Trust, Ahmedabad

ITA 631/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 76903 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , , , 0 00 0 0 00 0 ' ' ' ' , , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # % # % # % # % BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 631/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(4), AHMEDABAD. VS SHREE RAM FAMILY TRUST, 17, PAVITRANAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. CADILA LABORATORIES, GHODASAR, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAAAS4935K &'/ APPELLANT )*&' / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, AR + , $/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 30/06/2014 -./ , $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/07/2014 #0 #0 #0 #0/ // / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABAD DATED 30.12.2010. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CANCELLING THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS 3,01 ,800/- LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALED INCOME OF RS 9,15,320/-. ITA NO. 631/AHD/2011 SHREE RAM FAMILY TRUST, AHMEDABAD. AY 2005-06 - 2 - 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN THE INSTANT CASE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS 3,01,800/- IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT. THE ABOVE PENALTY WAS DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHEREIN SIMILAR PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS. 4. BEFORE US, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHICH WAS PASSED FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE PASSED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. NO GOOD REASON COULD BE CITED BEFORE US TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). FURTHER, NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE R EVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) P ASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS VARIED BY ANY HIGHER AU THORITY ON AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THEREAGAINST. THEREFORE, WE D ECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 4 TH OF JULY, 2014 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/077/2014 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S.