Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad

Memon Mohammed Salim Haji Abdulgani, , ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), , ... on 21 March, 2017

             IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               AHMEDABAD "C" BENCH AHMEDABAD

         BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
       AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                              ITA No.1619/Ahd/2014
                            (Assessment Year:2008-09)

Shri Memon Mohammed Salim
Haji Abdulgani
Nr. Rozy Cinema, Sarangpur,
Ahmedabad - 380002                                                   Appellant

                                     Vs.

Income Tax Officer,
Ward - 9(4), Ahmedabad                                              Respondent

PAN: ALLPM2458A

      आवेदक क  ओर से/By Assessee           : Written Submissions
      राज व क  ओर से/By Revenue       : Shri Pradeep Kumar Majmudar,
                                        Sr. D.R.
      सन
       ु वाई क  तार ख/Date of Hearing : 21.03.2017
      घोषणा क  तार ख/Date of
      Pronouncement                        : 21.03.2017

                                  ORDER

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2008-09 emanates against the CIT(A)-II, Ahmedabad's ex parte order dated 31.03.2014, passed in appeal no. CIT(A)-II/ITO.Wd.9(4)/ABD/103/2013-14, upholding Assessing Officer's action imposing penalty of Rs.94,342/-, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".

ITA No. 1619/Ahd/2014 [Shri Memon Mohammed Salim Haji Avdulgani vs. ITO]

A.Y. 2008-09 -2- We have heard learned Departmental Representative and perused assessee's written submissions.

2. Relevant facts are in a very narrow compass. This assessee is engaged in transport business. The Assessing Officer framed a regular assessment in his case on 13.12.2010 disallowing interest payments made to Tata Motors and GMAC totaling to Rs.2,36,369/- quoting assessee's failure in not deducting TDS thereupon u/s.194A of the Act. He further disallowed unpaid Accountant fee and creditors of Punjab Tyre co. of Rs.1.1lac by observing that the assessee followed cash system of accounting wherein only the expenses actually paid are allowable. He further initiated the impugned penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.

3. We now come to the penalty proceedings in question. The Assessing Officer heavily relied upon above assessment developments and assessee's action in not filing any reply that the two quantum additions hereinabove amounting to concealment of income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to impose the impugned penalty of Rs.90,342/- in question as affirmed in the ex parte lower appellate order under challenge.

4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to assessee's written submissions as well as Revenue's strong stand supporting the impugned penalty. We observe first of all that both the lower authorities have held the assessee to have concealed his income arising from the two quantum disallowances whereas the impugned penalty had been initiated only alleging furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. It is therefore a case wherein both the lower authorities have acted in excess of the original show cause reasons. We wish to reiterate that we are dealing with penalty provision in a fiscal statute to be strictly construed. We therefore reverse the lower ITA No. 1619/Ahd/2014 [Shri Memon Mohammed Salim Haji Avdulgani vs. ITO] A.Y. 2008-09 -3- authorities' findings on this concealment aspect for the sole reason hereinabove that the same is against the penalty show cause notice.

We now advert to latter aspect of the impugned penal action concluding that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It emerges from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had verified assessee's books, bills, vouchers and details of loans and liabilities to arrive at the two disallowances in question. We do not see anywhere in assessment order that he had himself even asked the assessee to produce any additional particulars. It therefore emerges that the assessee's all relevant particulars were found to be incorrect resulting in the two quantum disallowances. We thus conclude that this is also not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty.

5. This assessee's appeal is allowed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of March, 2017.] Sd/- Sd/-

  (AMARJIT SINGH)                                                    (S. S. GODARA)
 ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 21/03/2017
                                           True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क   	त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)

5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।