Shri Manubhai Morarbhai Patel(HUF), Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(1), Baroda

ITA 684/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1305 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA SINGH

Judgement Text

ITA NO .684 /AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 0 4 - 05 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND KUL BHARAT JM] ITA NO. 684 / AHD / 2 0 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 4 - 05 M ANUBHAI MORARBHAI PATEL (HUF) ....... .. . ..... APPELLANT JASPUR ROAD, PADRA, VADODARA [PAN AA BH M 4333 H ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, .... .................. .... .. RESPONDENT WARD 3 ( 1 ), BARODA. APPEARANCES BY: PARIN SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT NARENDRA SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 4 TH , 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 27 TH , 2015 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR AM: 1. THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST LEARNED CIT ( A ) S ORDER DATED 2 ND JANUARY, 2012 UPHOLDING PENALTY OF RS.98,220/ - IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME T A X ACT , 1961 ( T HE ACT FOR SHORT), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 . 2. TO ADJUDICATE O N THIS APPEAL , ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS NEED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. IN THIS CASE, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.8,91,371/ - BUT, BASED ON CERTAIN ESTI MATIONS OF AGRICULTURAL YIELD OF TOBACCO, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,31,630/ - WAS TREATED ITA NO .684 /AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2 0 0 4 - 05 PAGE 2 OF 2 AS NON - AGRICULTURAL INCOME, AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. IT IS IN RESPECT OF THIS QUANTUM ADDITION THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE DID CARRY THE MAT T ER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD . CIT ( A ) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. NOT SATISFIED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEA R D THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CA S E IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGA L POSITION. 4. WE HAVE NOTED THAT T HE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS BASED ON ESTIMATIONS. SUCH ESTIMATION MAY BE GOOD ENOUGH, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS BUT, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, CER TA INLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THESE ESTIMATIONS, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CANNOT JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. P RONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH D AY OF OCTOBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - KUL BHARAT PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD , THE 27 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 5 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD