Nayanaben G. Sheth,, Ahmedabad v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 2886/AHD/2013 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 288620514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN CCRPS8870D
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2886/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Nayanaben G. Sheth,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 28-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 28-09-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 09-12-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2886/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 NAYANABEN G. SHETH 619 VIRAG SOCIETY P T COLLEGE ROAD PALDI AHMEDABAD PAN : CCRPS 8870 D VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(2) AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.A. MEHTA CA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/09/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/09/2016 / O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL CHALLENGING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.3 01 900/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT AT TH E TIME OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. AO IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE KEPT IN ABEYANCE AS THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS P ENDING BEFORE THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH. LD. AO DID NOT MAKE ANY MEN TION OF SUCH REQUEST AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO S AY IN THIS MATTER. IT IS CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ALREADY IN APP EAL BEFORE ITAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ON MERITS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF P&L ACCOUNT BALANCE-S HEET CAPITAL ACCOUNT CASH BOOK ETC.. THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY AND THE BIL LS WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE WITH HER. ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF PHOTOGRAPHIC MATERIAL WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE FROM ASSESSE ES BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH REFERS TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E BUT MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS REJECTED UNDER RULE 46A IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE MATERIAL HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE PENALTY MATTER. SMC-ITA NO. 2886/AHD/2013 - NAYANABEN G. SHETH VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 2 3. IT IS CONTENDED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEP ARATE AND DISTINCT; AND A NEW PLEA OR NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS NOT JUS TIFIED ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW WHEN THE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST T O KEEP THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IN ABEYANCE PENDING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ASSESSEES REQUEST SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER LY CONSIDERED INSTEAD OF ASSUMING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY AND I MPOSING THE PENALTY ON SUCH ASSUMPTION. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT AND IF ANY NEW EVIDENCE WAS FILED THE SAME SHOULD BE APPRECIA TED WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF PENALTY. THEREFORE IN THE ENTIRETY OF FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS ARE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO D ECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND THUS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/09/2016 *BIJU T. SMC-ITA NO. 2886/AHD/2013 - NAYANABEN G. SHETH VS. ITO AY : 2007-08 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD