Shri Chimanbhai Sukhalal Patel, Dist.Panchmahal v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1,, Godhra

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : C BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA J.M. & HONBLE SH RI D.C. AGARWAL A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 504/AHD./2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-2002 SHRI CHIMANBHAI SUKHABHAI PATEL PANCHAMAHALVS.- I NCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 GODHRA (PAN : AEOPP 6918 A) (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : N O N E RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR . D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.11.2006 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI BARODA IN APPEAL NO. CAB/VI-120/05-06 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 CO NFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1 45 463/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE SERVI CE OF NOTICE NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR AN APPLICATION FO R ADJOURNMENT IS RECEIVED. THIS CASE WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING ON 13.04.2005 ON WHICH D ATE AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. IN THE SAID APPLICATION IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITA NO. 1756/AHD/2005 IS PENDING THEREFORE THE PRESENT AP PEAL WHICH IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BE ADJOURNED SINE DIE. 3. SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR. D.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE SINCE THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DECIDED. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS DEC IDED ON 20.02.2009 WHEREIN THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND HE IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO. 6 WHICH READS AS UNDER :- 6. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 2 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2009 OF ITAT C BENCH AHMEDABA D IN ITA NO. 1756/AHD/2005. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO. 6 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE MON THS THEREFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CANCELLED THE ASS ESSMENT. AS PER TRIBUNALS ORDER QUANTUM APPEAL CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION OF A.O. IS PEND ING WHEREIN ONE OF THE GROUNDS IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH INCOME-TAX RETURN IS FILED. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AND DIRECT HIM TO RE-DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 5. IN THE RESULT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.01.2010 SD/- SD/- (D.C. AGARWAL) (T.K. SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22 / 01 / 2010 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE (2) THE RESPONDENT 3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R. ITAT AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD LAHA/SR.P.S.