Sejal Gopalbhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 257/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2446 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N P PATEL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A. NOS: 257 & 258/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) SEJAL GOPALBHAI SHAH, 11, CHARANKRUPA SOCIETY, NEAR SHIVRANJANI CROSS ROAD, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380015 V/S ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AGDPS3217Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.P. PATEL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 28 -11-20 16 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 -11-2016 PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE ARE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED COMMON O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS2002-03 & 2003-04 AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IT(SS)A NOS. 257 & 258/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2002-0 3 2 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND AS U NDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT HO LDING THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT. 3. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE ABOVE GROUND IS A PURELY LEGAL ISSUE AND IT WAS ALSO RAIS ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BUT LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO AD JUDICATE THIS ISSUE. 4. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION FINDING THAT THIS IS A L EGAL ISSUE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND DESPITE BEING RAISED WAS NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS ADMITTED. 5. UPON HEARING BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSING THE RECO RD. I FIND THAT THOUGH THIS ISSUE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE SAME. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL FAIRLY AGREED THAT T HE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) SO THAT HE CAN ADJUDI CATE THIS ISSUE. BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE NOW IN POSSESS ION OF CASE LAWS WHICH SUPPORT THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES. 6. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, I REMIT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEALS INCLUDING THAT RAISED BY ADDITIONAL GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDER THAT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY ORDER IS BARRED BY LIMITATION WITHIN THE ME ANING OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT AND ALSO HE SHALL CONSIDER THE ISSUE OF PEN ALTY ON MERITS DE NOVO. AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. IT(SS)A NOS. 257 & 258/AHD/2015 . A.Y. 2002-0 3 3 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 - 11- 20 16. SD/- TRUE COPY (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD