M/s Munshi Ram Walaiti Ram, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 810/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5382 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHIR B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.810/CHD/201 6 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S MUNSHI RAM WALAITI RAM, VS. THE D.C.I.T., SCO 854, NAC, MANIMAJRA, CENTRAL CIRCEL-II, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN NO. : AAFFM7631J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NEERAJ JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.01. 2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH,JM BY THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CORRECT NESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2016 OF CIT(APPEALS)-3, GURGAON PERTAINING TO 200910 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY ORDER UND ER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ITAT BY THIS CONS OLIDATED ORDER DATED 29.4.2016 IN ITA NO.41/CHD/2013 AND OTHERS PERTAINING TO 2005-06 TO 2009- 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS CONSIDERED IN PARA 47 PAGE 2 9 AND 30 OF THE QUANTUM ORDER THE SPECIFIC ADDITION WHICH IS A SUBJECT MA TTER OF THE PRESENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ORIGINAL ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.37,37,415/- HAD BEEN SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,03,765/-. AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(APPE ALS) THE REVENUE HAD COME UP IN APPEAL AND THE CROSS APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE REVENUE HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT VIDE THE AFORESAID CON SOLIDATED ORDER WHEREIN THE ISSUES HAD BEEN RAISED IN ITA 45/CHD/2013 A ND ITA NO. 223/CHD/2013 AND THE ITAT HAD DELETED THE ADDITION SUS TAINED IN THE AFORESAID PARA. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SINC E THE PENALTY HAS BEEN BASED ONLY ON THIS ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINE D BY THE CIT(APPEALS) WHICH FINALLY STANDS DELETED BY THE ORDER OF TH E I.T.A.T., IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT SURVIVE. ITA 810/CHD/2016 A.Y. 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 2 2 3. THE LD. SR. DR CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT PAS SED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DID NOT OFFER ANY CONTRARY SUBMISSION 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND, WHEREIN ADMITTEDLY THE ADDITION S SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) STANDS DELETED BY THE ITAT, THE OCC ASION TO CONSIDER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS QUA THE SAID AMOUNT SUSTAINED BY TH E CIT(APPEALS) DOES NOT ARISE. ACCORDINGLY ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER BECOMES IN FRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED. THE SAID ORDER WAS ANNOUNCED THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSE LF. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03.01. 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *RATI*/POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.