Shri Bhavesh Satabhai Patel, Anand V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-2, Anand

ITA 77/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1706 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: N C AMIN

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 77/AHD/2016 BHAVESH SATABHAI PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2009-2010 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO. 77/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BHAVESH SATABHAI PATEL ............APPELLA NT PANDAV SOCIETY, AT & POST ODE, DIST. ANANAD 388 210 [PAN : AGZPP 2683 B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .......................RESPONDENT WARD-2, ANAND APPEARANCES BY: NC AMIN FOR THE APPELLANT ALOK KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 26.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 21.03.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 15 TH OCTOBER 2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-4, VADODARA, CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.24,817/- IMPOSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SHORT, IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.24,817/-. 3. THE RELATED QUANTUM ADDITION IS WITH RESPECT TO INCOME FROM TRADING IN BANANA AT 6% OF THE SALES TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE H AD CLAIMED THAT SUCH SALE WAS PURELY ON COMMISSION BASIS AT 1% OF TURNOVER, B UT DISREGARDING THIS EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED INCOME AT 10% WHICH WAS REDUCED TO 6% BY CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, DECLINED TO G IVE FURTHER RELIEF AND CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 6% OF TURNOVER. IT IS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS ESTIMATION THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WAS IMPOSED WHICH WAS CON FIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH, TO THE HILT, THE FACT OF HIS HAV ING WORKED ON PURELY COMMISSION BASIS, HE, NEVERTHELESS, HAD A REASONABLE EXPLANATI ON. AS FAR AS PENALTY SMC-ITA NO. 77/AHD/2016 BHAVESH SATABHAI PATEL VS. ITO AY : 2009-2010 PAGE 2 OF 2 PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, AN EXPLANATION BEING REA SONABLE, EVEN IF NOT ACCEPTABLE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IS GOOD ENOUGH. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT EXPLANATION IS REASONABLE. THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS ALSO VERY SMALL. KEEPING IN MIND THESE FACTORS, AND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I AM INCLINED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. I, ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLD THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 21 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: ...ORDER PREPARED AS PER THE TWO PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM ARE ATTACHED WITH THIS APPEAL FILE.. 20.03.2018 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 20.03.2018...... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: ..21.03.2018...... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: ... 21.03.2018. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : ... 21.03.2018 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......