Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: due date for vat payment :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: VAT Audit :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: VAT RATES :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: empanelment :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: cpt :: form 3cd
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ultratech Cement Ltd vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
  CIT vs. Annamalaiar Mills (Supreme Court)
 CIT vs. Equinox Solution Pvt. Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Centaur Helicopter Services P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Ashok Chawla Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-XI & ANR.
  CIT vs. Annamalaiar Mills (Supreme Court)
 Kalyani Barter (P) Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Rajendra Goud Chepur vs. ITO (AP & T High Court)
  CIT vs. Annamalaiar Mills (Supreme Court)

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta,A-179, Naya Bans,New Delhi-110006. Vs. Income-tax Officer,Ward 28(1), New Delhi.
December, 15th 2012
       IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHI BENCH `F': NEW DELHI

   BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
        SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                          I.T.A. No.263/Del/2012
                          Assessment Year : 2006-07

Mr. Pradeep Kumar Gupta,                     Income-tax Officer,
A-179, Naya Bans,               Vs.          Ward 28(1), New Delhi.
New Delhi-110006.                             PAN : AHTPG8488L

  (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

                 Appellant by : Shri Manu Giri, Advocate.
                 Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Kadia, Sr. DR.

                           Date of hearing      : 13-12-2012
                           Date of Pronouncement : 13-12-2012




                                 ORDER

PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30-11-2011

passed by the learned First Appellate Authority, New Delhi. The only

ground raised by the assessee is that on the facts and in the circumstances of

the case, the learned CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the penalty of

Rs.29,918/- imposed under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the

Act), particularly when the necessary evidences were adduced by the

assessee and the payment made to old sundry creditors was added in the

assessment, being the amount surrendered by the assessee for taxation,
                                     2                   ITA No.263/Del/2012


subject to no penalty and also to buy peace with the Department as the

amount was not confirmed with the credit.

2.    During hearing we have heard Shri Manu Giri, learned counsel for the

assessee and Shri Rajesh Kumar Kadia, learned Sr.DR.           The crux of

arguments on behalf of the assessee is identical to the ground raised by

further submitting that due to some dispute with M/s. Ramjilal & Sons, they

did not cooperate with the assessee and the surrender was made with a

condition that no penalty will be imposed upon the assessee, whereas the

learned Sr. DR defended the imposition as well as confirmation of penalty.

3.    We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material

available on record. The facts in brief are that the assessee was doing

business of trading in sugar and food-grains, declared income of

Rs.1,21,226/- in his return filed on 30th October, 2006.      The case was

selected for scrutiny on random basis in CASS. Pursuance to notices issued

by the Department the assessee appeared from time to time and filed

necessary details.   The assessee also produced books of accounts and

vouchers which were test-checked by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

declared turnover of Rs.54,22,137/- and showed the gross profit at

Rs.1,55,551/-. The books of accounts of the assessee are also audited.

During verification of books it was noted that in the account of the assessee
                                     3                    ITA No.263/Del/2012


in the case of M/s. Ramjilal & Sons, the correct position was not reflected.

As per the Revenue there was no opening balance of the assessee in the

books of M/s. Ramjilal & Sons, whereas the assessee debited sum of

Rs.75,000/- by cheque No.61487 and another amount of Rs.74,999/- by

cheque No.61488. As per the Bank Statement, the assessee withdrew these

amounts in cash. When the assessee was confronted as the figure is not

reflected in the books of M/s. Ramjilal & Sons, the assessee agreed for the

disallowance and surrendered the same for taxation. The Assessing Officer

initiated penalty proceedings under sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act. As per the

version of the assessee the surrender was made simply to buy peace with the

Department and consequently, did not prefer any further appeal. It was also

pleaded that the surrender was made on the assurance of the Department that

no penalty will be levied.     We find that the assessee in his written

submissions has also specifically mentioned that the addition was agreed

simply to buy peace and to avoid litigation (Page 4 of the Paper Book). At

Page 5 also (Para 3.3 of the written submissions) of the Paper Book it has

specifically been mentioned that the concurrence of addition was made with

the condition that no penalty will be imposed on the assessee and thus, the

imposition is (as per the assessee) is breach of trust. The assessee has also

placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements in his written
                                          4                  ITA No.263/Del/2012





submissions. Under the peculiar facts of the case, the assertion made by the

learned counsel for the assessee, and also keeping in view the small amount

of penalty involved, we direct to delete the same.

4.        Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

5.        This order was pronounced in the Open Court in the presence of the

learned representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on

13th December, 2012.


             Sd/-                                     Sd/-
       ( B.C. MEENA)                             (JOGINDER SINGH)
     ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 13th December, 2012.

Copy of the order forwarded to:-

     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT(A)
     5.   DR
                                                 By Order


*mg                                        Deputy Registrar, ITAT.
 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2017 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Application Management Solutions Application Management System Application Management Software System Application Management Development Application Management Software Development

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions