The ITO, Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad V. M/s. R.Vallabhdas & Co., Ahmedabad

ITSSA 6/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9952 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.06/AHD/2011 ITO WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD. VS M/S. R. VALLABHDAS & CO., CHABUTRA BAZAR, DHANDHUKA, DISTRICT- AHMEDABAD. PAN:AABFR1143F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/01/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 28.10.2010. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT L EARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE INTEREST OF RS. 3,36,537/- CHARGE U/S. 158BFA OF THE ACT. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS THE SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE FIRST ROUND O F APPEAL, THE AO LEVIED INTEREST U/S.158BFA(1) OF THE ACT AND THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER IT(SS)A NO.06/AHD/2011 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. R. VALLABHDAS & CO.. - 2 - OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2007 I N APPEAL NO. 78/AHD/2003 BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DIRECTING AO TO VERIFY THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO ASSESSEE, AND ACCORDINGLY, LEVY INT EREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1), HIS ORDER IS UPHELD. 4. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER LEVIED INTEREST U/S.158BFA, VIDE ORDER DATED 25.07.2007 BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: THE ITAT HAS ALSO CATEGORICALLY UPHELD THE CIT(A) O RDER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY WHETH ER THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELAY IN OBTAINING COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL AND HE SHOULD EXCLUDE SUCH DELAY. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN AUTHORIZE D TO DECIDE THE REASON FOR THE DELAY IT IS HELD THAT THE TIME TAKEN TO PROCURE THE COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF DELAY IN FILING THE BLOCK RETU RN IN WHICH UNACCOUNTED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS TO BE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE. COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL ARE NOT THE PREREQUISITE FOR FILING THE BL OCK RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JUST TO MENTION THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOCK RETURN WHICH IS NO WHERE ACCOUN TED FOR. IT IS UP TO THE DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WHETHER THE SAID RETURNED INCOME CORRELATES WITH THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL. HENCE, EVEN IF THERE IS A DELAY IN GETTING COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL IT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DELAY IN FILING THE BLOCK RETURN. ORDER PASSED ACCORDINGLY. INTEREST CHARGED U/S.158B FA AT 2% PER MONTH OR PART OF THE MONTH FOR 4 MONTHS (6.11.2000 TO 12.2.2 001) ON TAX (60% OF RS.70,11,930=42,07,158). THEREFORE, 8% OF RS.42,07, 158/- I.E., RS.3,36,573/- IS THE INTEREST PAYABLE U/S.158BFA 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE LEVY O F INTEREST ON THE GROUND THAT DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS WAS TO VERIFY WHETHER THE DELAY IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DELAY IN SUPPLYING COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE AOS OBSERVATIONS ARE IMPLIEDLY THAT DELAY WAS ATTRIBUTA BLE TO FURNISHING OF COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY HE DELETED T HE LEVY OF INTEREST. IT(SS)A NO.06/AHD/2011 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. M/S. R. VALLABHDAS & CO.. - 3 - 6. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO W HEREAS THE LEARNED AR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C IT(A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER T HE FURNISHING OF COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL T O THE AO WAS TO LEVY INTEREST ONLY IF THERE WAS DELAY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NO INTEREST WAS LEVIABLE FOR T HE PERIOD OF DELAY ATTRIBUTABLE TO SUPPLYING OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO. IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE RETURN WAS ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) ( N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/01/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD