Simit Sheth v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda
[Citation -2016-LL-0930-264]

Citation 2016-LL-0930-264
Appellant Name Simit Sheth
Respondent Name Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda
Court ITAT-Ahmedabad
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/09/2016
Assessment Year 2006-07
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags computation of income
Bot Summary: Respondent Appearances by: Urvashi Shodhan, for the appellant O.P. Meena, for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing: 19.07.2016 Date of pronouncing the order: 30.09.2016 O R D E R 1. By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 2nd July, 2013, passed by the learned CIT(A) upholding the penalty of Rs.1,51,721/- imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. Grievance of the assessee, in substance, is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the impugned penalty of Rs.1,51,721/-. In the present case, originally an amount of Rs.41,04,903/- was disallowed as bogus purchases, and, on that basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was made. The assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before me. In any case, even the income is computed purely on estimate basis. In this view of the matter, in my considered view, the penalty must stand deleted.


I.T.A. No.2445/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 1 of 3 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar AM] I.T.A. No.2445/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Simit Sheth .................... Appellant L/R. of Late Shri Pankaj J. Sheth, C/o. Manish G. Sheth, 38/101, Gautamnagar Soc Race Course Circle, Vadodara. [PAN: ADBPS 9145 C] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda. ........... .Respondent Appearances by: Urvashi Shodhan, for appellant O.P. Meena, for respondent Date of concluding hearing: 19.07.2016 Date of pronouncing order: 30.09.2016 O R D E R 1. By way of this appeal, assessee appellant has challenged correctness of order dated 2nd July, 2013, passed by learned CIT(A) upholding penalty of Rs.1,51,721/- imposed on assessee under section 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2006-07. 2. Grievance of assessee, in substance, is that learned CIT(A) erred in upholding impugned penalty of Rs.1,51,721/-. I.T.A. No.2445/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 2 of 3 3. In present case, originally amount of Rs.41,04,903/- was disallowed as bogus purchases, and, on that basis, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of Act was made. When finally matter travelled in appeal before Tribunal, while this disallowance was deleted, assessee was held to be in business of issuing accommodation, and, income estimated @ 12.5% of value of bills issued was brought to tax. As for penalty, when matter was carried in appeal before learned CIT(A), learned CIT(A) upheld penalty in principle but restricted quantum of penalty on basis of income computed @ 12.5% of sale bill. assessee is aggrieved and is in further appeal before me. 4. I have heard rival contentions, perused material on record and duly considered facts of case in light of applicable legal position. 5. I find that very basis of impugned penalty, in light of course adopted by Tribunal by estimating income @ 12.5% of sale bill, stands vacated. nature of computation of income now has nothing in parity with disallowance originally made. In any case, even income is computed purely on estimate basis. In this view of matter, in my considered view, penalty must stand deleted. I order so. 6. In result, appeal is allowed. Pronounced in open Court on this 30th day of September, 2016. Sd/- Pramod Kumar (Accountant Member) Dated: 30 th day of September, 2016. PBN/* I.T.A. No.2445/Ahd/2013 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Page 3 of 3 Copies to: (1) appellant (2) respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad Simit Sheth v. Income-tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Baroda
Report Error