Sh. Sanjeev Gupta, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 958/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6512 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 958/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2000-01 SH. SANJEEV GUPTA, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE V, PROP M/S JYOTI STEELS, LUDHIANA C/O SH. VINOD GARG, 577-B, AGGAR NAGAR, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AANPG6524E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 21.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.12.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, LUDHIANA DATED 31.03.2017. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AS MANY AS SEVEN G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT GR OUND NO.6 WHICH IS 2 RELATING TO ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME BY RS. 1 LAC BY T HE LD. CIT(A), BE TAKEN FOR HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN T HE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. IT HAS B EEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENHANCEMENT O F RS. 1 LAC HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENDITURE RELATING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON 6.1.2006 AND THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE, WA S TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FURTHER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSID ERATION IS 2000-01 AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2000-01, NO SUCH PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVE N NO EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE SAID PENALTY HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, HAD RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, HE NCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ENHANCIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS. 1 LAC MADE BY THE LD. CI T(A) INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. 6. SINCE OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21.12.2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR