M/s. Priyanka Cords & Tassels Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(4), Surat

ITA 693/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0857 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.693/AHD/2012 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2006-2007 M/S.PRIYANKA CORDS & TASSELS P.L T D. G-2, PARSHVA APARTMENTS NR.HANDLOOM HOUSE NANPURA, SURAT 395 002. PAN : AACCP 6896 L. VS ITO, WARD - 1(4) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WS) REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 11/08/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 12/08/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.C IT(A)-1, SURAT DATED 28.9.2011 FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2006-07. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,36,100/- IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO.693/AHD/2012 2 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, SHRI DILE EP PATEL CA HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT IS PLEADED IN THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A DEDUCTIO N UNDER SECTION 10A AMOUNTING TO RS.4,84,650/-. THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT I NSTALL NEW MACHINERY. THIS DISPUTE TRAVELLED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 1914/AHD/2009. THE TRIBUNAL HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH. SIMILAR DIRECTIONS WERE GIVEN IN TH E ASSTT.YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD.AO AGAIN MADE ADDITION, AND ULTIMATELY DISPUTE TRAVELLED TO THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 15.4.2014 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.CAS- 1/10/2013-14 DELETED THE ADDITIONS. NOW, THERE IS NO ADDITION ON WHICH IT CAN BE ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVADED THE TAXES. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE. 4. ON DUE CONSIDERATIONS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT S UB-CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR QUANTIFICATION OF PENALTY. IT CONTEM PLATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM IN ADDITION TO TAXES, IF ANY, PAYABLE HIM, WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHIC H SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE E VADED BY REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS DEPENDED UPON THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.693/AHD/2012 3 SINCE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LD.CIT (A), THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS TO VISIT THE ASSESSEE WITH PENALTY H AS EXTINGUISHED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE PENA LTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 12/08/2016