The ITO, Ward-9(1), Surat V. Smt. Falguniben Chetankumar Patel, Surat

ITA 655/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 65520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 655/ AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) ITO, WARD 9(1), SURAT VS. SMT. FALGUNIBEN CHETANKUMAR PATEL, A-11, TRIKAM NAGAR SOCIETY 1, L H ROAD, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : ADGPP4059H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 15.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15. 06.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT(A) V, SURAT DATED 13.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 001-02. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELEING THE PENALTY OF RS.3 ,90,000/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTAN TIVE BASIS IS STILL PENDING FINALIZATION. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVE NUE EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A.NO.655 /AHD/2010 2 3. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D. R. AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND T HAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PRESENT ASSES SEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WHEREAS SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE REVENU E IN THE BENEFICIARYS HANDS. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DURGA KAMAL RICE MILL S VS CIT AS REPORTED IN 265 ITR 25. LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED A TRIBUNAL DE CISIONS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION AND BY FOLLOWING THESE JUDGEMENT S OF THE TRIBUNAL AND OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, HE HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE. LD. D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT AS TO HOW THESE JUDGEMENTS FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CA SE. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 13/6 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE I.T.A.NO.655 /AHD/2010 3 DICTATING MEMBER 14/6.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 15/6 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.15/6 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15/6/12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .