Mavin Texturisers Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat vs Assessee

Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee against the respective order for A.Y. 2005-06 and 2006-07 against penalty orders u/s. 271(1)(c). So, they have been disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience. I.T.A No. 1963-1964/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 2 Mavin Textrurisers Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

2. In ITA No. 1963/Ahd/2011 for A.Y. 2005-06, the assessee has filed the appeal on following ground:-

"1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case as well as on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying a penalty of Rs. 14,83,964/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act."

3. At the outset of hearing, Ld. AR pointed out that in quantum proceedings issue has been decided in favour of assessee in ITA No. 2296/Ahd/2008 for A.Y. 2005-06 by observing as under:-

"5 At the time of hearing, both sides conceded that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered in favour of assessee by the decision of ITAT, "C' Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1044/AHD/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 in assessee's own case. It is pertinent to note that in the assessment year 2004-05, ITAT, 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad fallowing the decision dated 10.11.2009 in the case of Nangalm Synthetics Pvt. Ltd, in ITA No. 2213/AHD/2008 directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 50%. We, therefore, following the decision of ITAT 'C' Bench, Ahmedabad in ITA No. 1044/AHD/2007 for the assessment year 2004-05 in aasessee's own case (supra) direct the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation @ 50%. Resultantly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed."

which has not been disputed by Ld. DR. Thus, position emerged that quantum addition which is the basis for penalty in question has been decided in favour of assessee. So, penalty in question does not survive. Accordingly, the same is I.T.A No. 1963-1964/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 3 Mavin Textrurisers Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

directed to be deleted. As a result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

4. Similar issue arose in A.Y. 2006-07 and again it was pointed out that issue in quantum proceedings in ITA No. 1453/Ahd/2009 for A.Y. 2006-07 has been decided in favour of assessee which is the basis of penalty in question. So, penalty in question does not survive because basis of the same has gone. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed.

5. In result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page i.e. 30-04-2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 30/04/2015 ak आदे श क ूितिल प अमे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. Assessee

2. Revenue

3. Concerned CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. Guard file.

By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार I.T.A No. 1963-1964/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07 Page No 4 Mavin Textrurisers Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद