M/s. Plastichemix Industries, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 110/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0535 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , , , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.110 TO 113 /AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2002-2003 TO 2005-2006] M/S.PLASTICHEMIX INDUSTRIES 6 TH FLOOR, KIRTI TOWER, TILAK ROAD BARODA. PAN : AABFP 8519 L /VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.2 BARODA. ( (( ( *+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( ( ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ./ 0 1 & / ASSESSEE BY : SMT.URVASHI SODHAN ( 0 1 & / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR.DR 3 0 /4' / DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH DECEMBER, 2014 567 0 /4' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-01-2015 &8 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YE ARS 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), BARODA. THESE ARE DISPOSED OF WITH THI S CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ONLY IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT I N THE QUANTUM APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT.YEARS 2002-03 TO 20 05-06, THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS WAS RESTORED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AND ALSO TO DECIDE THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL AS ADDITIONAL GROUND IT(SS)A NO.110 TO 113 /AHD/2011 -2- OF THE APPEAL. IN THESE FACTS, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT MAY ALSO BE REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME DE NOVO . THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT.YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06. WE FIND THAT THE ONLY IDENTICA L ISSUE IN THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOS ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.5.2012 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT.YEARS 2002-03 TO 2005-06 IN ITA NOS. 1312 TO 1315/AHD/2009 HAS RESTORED THE ISSUES IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE SAME DE NOVO , AND HAS ALSO RESTORED THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS AD DITIONAL GROUND OF THE APPEAL REGARDING THE LEGALITY OF ACTION UNDERTAKEN UNDER S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT, WERE RESTORED THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION. IN THESE FACTS, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF PEN ALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSTT.YEARS 2 002-03 TO 2005-06 TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO PASS DE NOVO ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ON MERIT AFTER DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THEPARTIE S, AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH MAY BE PAS SED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEARS. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## # . .. . # ## # . . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT