Late Smt. Lilaben P. Sanghvi Through L/HDr.Narendra Popatlal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1647/AHD/2013 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 164720514 RSA 2013
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1647/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant Late Smt. Lilaben P. Sanghvi Through L/HDr.Narendra Popatlal Sanghvi, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4), Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 13-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 13-10-2016
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 04-06-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.1647/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-2006 LATE SMT.LILABEN P. SANGHVI THROUGH L/H. DR.NARENDRA P. SANGHVI 22-23 SADBHAV BUNGLOW OPP: SHAHIBAUG TELEPHONE EXCHANGE SHAHIBAUG AHMEDABAD 380 004. VS ITO WARD - 2(4) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 13/10/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/10/2016 $%/ O R D E R ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A )-XXI AHMEDABAD DATED 26.11.2012 PASSED FOR THE ASTT.YEAR 2005-06. 2. SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE L D.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.27 651/- IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 3. REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 121 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 27.5 .2013 BECAUSE THE ORDER HAS BEEN SENT TO OLD ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM NO.3 5 FILED BEFORE THE FIRST ITA NO.1647/AHD/2013 2 APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E OF THE ASSESSEE INADVERTENTLY. PROPERTY AT THE OLD ADDRESS HAS BEE N SOLD TO ONE SHRI PRITAM JAIN AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY VACATED FROM THIS PREMISES TO NEW ADDRESS. AS PER INSTRUCTION OF CA OF THE ASSESSEE ASSESSEE ENQUIRED ABOUT THE SAME AND CAME TO KNOW ABOUT DELIVERY OF THE ORDER AT THE OLD ADDRESS. THEREFORE DELAY BEING OCCURRED DUE TO GENUINE REASON MAY BE C ONDONED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE I AM CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASON S BECAUSE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HAVE FILED THE A PPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR BY MENTIONING OLD ADDRESS FO R COMMUNICATION. DUE TO THIS REASON ORDER COULD NOT REACH TO THE ASSESS EE WELL IN TIME. THEREFORE I CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PLOT OF LAND SITUATED AT R AMYAKUNJ. SHE HAS SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.2 20 000/- WHEREAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION VALUE OF THE LAND WAS ADOPTED AT RS .3 21 200/-. THE LD.AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 01 211/- WITH THE HELP OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS QUA THIS ADDITION AND ULTIMATELY IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS.27 655/-. APPEA L TO THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE WITH AID OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHICH EMPOWERS THE AO TO DEEM SALE CONSIDERATION EQUAL TO THE AMOUNTS TO WHICH VALUE HAS BEEN ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. TO MY MIND THIS FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED FOR VISITING THE ASSESSEE WITH P ENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF ITA NO.1647/AHD/2013 3 INCOME BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD ALWAYS PLEAD THA T SHE HAD RECEIVED ONLY SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2 20 200/- AND HAD SHE AP PLIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 50 FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO A THIRD FIGURE WOULD HAVE COME OUT. UNDER THIS CIRCUMSTANCE I AM OF THE VIE W THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVES TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY. I ALLOW T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH OCTOBER 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER