Vasant R.Chheda, Valsad v. The ACIT.,Valsad Circle, Valsad

ITA 386/AHD/2008 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 38620514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AANPC9683L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 386/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Vasant R.Chheda, Valsad
Respondent The ACIT.,Valsad Circle, Valsad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 24-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-09-2010
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 01-02-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 20/09/2010 DRAFTED ON: 21 /09/2010 ITA NO.386/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99 SHRI VASANT R. CHHEDA PROP.M/S.JUPITER ENTERPRISES 302 BINA PARK THITHAL ROAD VALSAD 396 001 VS. THE ASSTT.CIT VALSAD CIRCLE VALSAD PAN/GIR NO. : AANPC 9683 L ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K.M. MAHESH SR. D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-VAL SAD DATED 25/10/2007 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 CONFIRMING THE L EVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2. AS PER THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DATED 10/05/2007 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DATED 2 9/03/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE PENALTY IN QUESTION HAS EMERGED FROM THE IMPUGNED O RDER THROUGH WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN REOPENED REFERRED HEREIN ABOVE. NOW BEFORE US AN ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEARIN G ITA ITA NO.386/AHD/ 2008 SHRI VASANT R. CHHEDA VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 2 - NOS.1964/AHD/2003 AND ITA NO.2352/AHD/2006 DATED 0 5/02/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS P LACED. IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITA NO.2352/AHD/2006 (FOR A.Y. 1998-99) WAS THE APP EAL AGAINST THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE RESPECTED CO-ORD INATE BENCH VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.11 HAS BEEN QUASHED THE REOPENED ASSES SMENT; FOR READY REFERENCE REPRODUCED BELOW:- 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS BECAUSE ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THERE IS NO ALLEGATION AS TO WHAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED. THE AO HAD ALREADY APPLIED HIS M IND DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE HAD ORIGINALLY TAKEN THE VALUE AT RS.12 56 771/- AS HAVING BEEN RECEIVED FRO M M/S PILOT PLASTICS BUT LATER CHANGED TO RS.9 31 974/- AND HEN CE HE HAD CONSIDERED THE DETAILS AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT M/S PILOT PLASTICS HAD SENT GOODS WORTH RS.9 31 974/-. WHAT T HE AO NOW AFTER FOUR YEARS DOING IS ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS. ONCE THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THERE IS AN Y OMISSION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE ANY MATERIAL FACT NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN REOPENING AFTER FOUR YEARS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (1) M/S BHAVESH DEVELOPERS MANSAROVAR BUILDING KA NDIVELI MUMBAI VS. CIT WRIT PETITION NO.2508 OF 2009 PRONO UNCED ON 12 TH JANUARY 2010 BOMBAY HIGH COURT. (2) CIT VS. JAY MICA SUPPLY CO. (P) LTD. (1994) 205 ITR 387 (CAL). (3) ITO VS. LAKHMANI MEWALDAS (1976) 103 ITR 437 (S C). (4) DHANRAJ SINGH AND CO. VS. CIT (1996) 218 ITR 3 12 (PATNA). (5) CIT VS. CHANDBALL RICE MILL (P) LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 368 (CAL). ITA NO.386/AHD/ 2008 SHRI VASANT R. CHHEDA VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 3 - 3. ONCE THE SAID ASSESSMENT FROM WHICH THE PENALTY IN QUESTION HAS EMANATED IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE AND THE ENTIRE RE- OPENED PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN QUASHED THEREFORE IN CONSEQUENCE THEREO F THE PRESENT CONCEALMENT PENALTY SHALL NOT SURVIVE. WE ORDER A CCORDINGLY. THE PENALTY IS THEREFORE CANCELLED. THUS GROUNDS R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 24/ 09 /2010. SD/- SD/- ( N.S. SAINI ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 24 / 09 /2010 T.C. NAIR SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPARTMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-VALSAD 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD ITA NO.386/AHD/ 2008 SHRI VASANT R. CHHEDA VS. ASST.CIT ASST.YEAR - 1998-99 - 4 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION.. 20/.09/2010 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21/09/2010 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 22/09/10 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 24/09/10 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER