M/s Classic Wears Pvt. Ltd. , Ludhiana v. ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana

ITA 94/CHANDI/2019 | 2013-2014
Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9421514 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AAACC5315K
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 94/CHANDI/2019
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant M/s Classic Wears Pvt. Ltd. , Ludhiana
Respondent ACIT, CC-II, Ludhiana
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 20-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 20-11-2019
Next Hearing Date 20-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 19-11-2019
First Hearing Date 13-08-2019
Assessment Year 2013-2014
Appeal Filed On 31-01-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BE NCH A CHANDIGARH .. !' '# $ % &' BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI VP & SHRI SANJAY GARG J M ITA NOS. 94 & 95/CHD/ 2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S CLASSIC WEARS PVT. LTD. (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/S SOBHAGIA SALES PVT. LTD.) VILLAGE MEHARBAN ROHAN ROAD LUDHIANA PUNJAB THE ACIT CC-II KITCHLU NAGAR LUDHIANA PUNJAB PAN NO: AAACC5315K APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR CA #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI ARVIND SUDARSHAN JCIT (DR) $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 20/11/2019 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/11/2019 &(/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI VICE PRESIDENT THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DT. 10/12/2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-2 JALANDHAR. 2. SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS COMMON IN BOTH THESE APP EALS WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONS OLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. IDENTICAL ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS RELAT E TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271AAB OF THE INCOME T AX ACT (HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED AS 'ACT') 1961. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HA S ALREADY BEEN DECIDED FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE ORDER OF EVEN DATE I .E 10/12/2018 OF THE SAME LD. 2 CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 96 & 97/CHD/2019 IN THE CASE OF M/S SOBHAGIA SALES PRIVATE LTD. LUDHIANA VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 LUDHIANA VIDE OR DER DT. 27/09/2019 COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD. 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. SR. DR ALTHOUGH SUP PORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS WAS A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E; M /S SOBHAGIA SALES PRIVATE LTD. VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE LUDHIANA IN ITA NO. 96 & 97/CHD/20 19 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 & 2014-15 WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DT. 27/09/2019 BY THE ITAT BENCH B CHANDIGARH THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 4 TO 8 WHICH R EAD AS UNDER: 4. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS CONTESTED THE CO NFORMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME U NDER SECTION 271A AB (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. AT THE OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271A A B OF THE A CT LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE HE HAS NOT TAKE N THE PRIOR APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 274(2) OF THE A CT WHICH WAS ACCORDED VIDE LETTER NO. 1026 DT. 30/09/2016 WHILE THE PENALTY ORDER W AS PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 29/ 09/2016 I.E PRIOR TO TAKING THE APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE RANGE LUDHIANA. THAT THE SAID COLUMN OF LETTER NUMBER AND DATE HAVE BEEN HAND FILLED LATER ON IN THE TYPED PENALTY ORDER. THE FACT ITSELF SPEAKS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE PENALTY ORDER WITHOUT TAKING THE REQUISITE APPROVAL FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND LATER ON THE BLANK COLUMN W AS FILLED AFTER PASSING OF T HE ORDER IN QUESTION. THE PENALTY U/S 271A A B OF T HE ACT LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS VOID ABINI TIO. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE L D. SR. D R STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE AUTHORITIES BE LOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE MAY BE A TYPOG RAPHICAL MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 271A AB(1) OF THE ACT AND BY MISTAKE THE DATE W AS MENTIONED AS 29/09/ 2016 WHILE THE D CR NUMBER WAS DT. 30/09/2016. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. T O RE SOLVE THE PRESENT C ONTROVERSY IT IS RELEVANT TO REFER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 274(2) OF T HE ACT WHICH READ AS UNDER: SECT ION 274(1) (2) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE MADE- (A) BY THE INCOME -TAX OFFICER WHERE THE PENALTY E XCEEDS TEN THOUSAND RUPEES; (B) BY THE ASSISTANT COM MISSIONER OR DEPUTY COMMIS SIONER WHERE THE PENALTY EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISS IONER. 3 8. FROM THE ABOVE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 2 74 OF THE A CT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR T HAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A AB OF THE A CT W HIC H FALLS IN CHAPTER X XI OF THE ACT S HALL NOT BE IMPOSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNTIL AND UNLE SS PRIOR APPROVAL IS TAKEN FROM THE CONCERNED JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (JCIT). THE US E OF WORD SHALL MAKE IT MANDATORY TO TAKE THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JCIT / ADDITIONAL CIT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER IMPOSING T HE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A A B OF THE AC T. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR FROM THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON 29/ 09/2016 WHILE T HE APPROVAL FROM THE ADDITIONAL CIT RANGE LUDHIANA W AS ACCORDED VI DE LETTER NO. 1026 DT. 30/09/ 2016 WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE PEN ALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 29/09/2016 BEFORE TAKING THE APPROVAL FR OM THE CONCERNED ADDITIONAL CIT / J.C. I.T. THE CONTENT ION OF T HE LD. D R THAT THE SAME MA Y BE A TYPOGRAPHICAL MI STAKE IS NOT TENABLE BECAUSE THE RELEVANT COLUMN OF APPROVAL LE TTER NO. AND DATE HAD BEEN LEFT BLANK IN THE PENALTY ORDER WHICH HAVE BEEN FILLED W ITH PEN ON RECEIPT OF SAID APPROVAL LETTER AND THE DATE MENTIONED FALLS AFTER THE DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. THEREFORE THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LE VYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271AA B OF THE ACT IS VOID A BINITIO. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AA B OF THE ACT BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY T HE LD. CIT(A ) IS DELETED. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO O RDER DT. 27/09/2019 THE PENALTIES SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER SECTION 271A AB OF THE ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2013- 14 & 2014-15 ARE DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/11/2019 ) SD/- SD/- '# $ .. (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) % &'/ JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 20/11/2019 (+! -.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR ITAT CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE