Nayanaben G. Sheth v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad
[Citation -2016-LL-0928-117]

Citation 2016-LL-0928-117
Appellant Name Nayanaben G. Sheth
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/09/2016
Assessment Year 2007-08
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags imposition of penalty • account payee cheque • additional evidence • penalty proceeding • capital account
Bot Summary: Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that at the time of penalty proceedings before the ld. Further, the assessee filed copies of PL account, Balance-sheet, Capital account, Cash book etc. CIT(A) to confirm the penalty without considering the additional evidence filed by the assessee. In my considered view, when the assessee made a request to keep the penalty proceeding in abeyance pending quantum proceedings, in the interest of justice, assessee s request should have been properly considered instead of assuming that the assessee has nothing to say and imposing the penalty on such assumption. Counsel for the assessee that the penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and if any new evidence was filed, the same should be appreciated while deciding the issue of penalty. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be served if the penalty proceedings are set aside and restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same afresh after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.


IN 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, Income Tax Officer, 619, Virag Society, P T College Vs Ward 11(2), Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad PAN : CCRPS 8870 D (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 ORDER This is assessees appeal challenging imposition of penalty of Rs.3,01,900/- u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act ). 2. Ld. Counsel for assessee contends that at time of penalty proceedings before ld. AO it was requested that penalty proceedings may be kept in abeyance as quantum appeal was pending before ITAT, Ahmedabad Bench. Ld. AO did not make any mention of such request and held that assessee has nothing to say in this matter. It is contended that when assessee was already in appeal before ITAT, it is not correct to assume that assessee has nothing to say on merits. Further, assessee filed copies of P&L account, Balance-sheet, Capital account, Cash book etc.. assessee is lady and bills were not readily available with her. All payments for purchase of photographic material were made through account payee cheque from assessee s bank account. ld. CIT(A), though refers to additional evidence, but merely because it was rejected under Rule 46A, in quantum proceedings material has not been considered while deciding 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 separate and distinct; and new plea or new evidence can be filed during course of penalty proceedings. In these circumstances, it is not justified on part of ld. CIT(A) to confirm penalty without considering additional evidence filed by assessee. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative, on other hand, supported orders of authorities below. 5. I have heard rival contentions, perused material available on record and gone through orders of authorities below. In my considered view, when assessee made request to keep penalty proceeding in abeyance pending quantum proceedings, in interest of justice, assessee s request should have been properly considered instead of assuming that assessee has nothing to say and imposing penalty on such assumption. There is merit in contention of ld. Counsel for assessee that penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and if any new evidence was filed, same should be appreciated while deciding issue of penalty. Therefore, in entirety of facts and circumstances, interest of justice will be served if penalty proceedings are set aside and restored back to file of Assessing Officer to decide same afresh after providing assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. I order accordingly and thus, assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Court on 28th September, 2016 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Ahmedabad; Dated 28/09/2016 Biju T.ITAT, Ahmedabad (Dy. Asstt.Registrar) TRUE COPY BY ORDER, Guard file. 6. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. CIT(A) ) ( 4. Concerned CIT 3. Respondent. 2. Appellant 1. Copy of Order forwarded to : 3 AY : 2007-08 - Nayanaben G. Sheth vs. ITO SMC-ITA No. 2886/Ahd/2013 Nayanaben G. Sheth v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad
Report Error