ACIT, CHENNAI V. Trisha Krishnan, CHENNAI

ITA 1009/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3861 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Non-deduction of tax; Revised return

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1009/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI - 34. VS MS. TRISHA KRISHNAN, 26, CENOTAPH ROAD 2 ND LANE, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 600 018. PAN:ACDPT8973C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 21 ST JUNE, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- I, MADURAI DATED 20.01.2016 IN ITA NO.775/15-16 PAS SED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) R.W.S 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,1611,202/- LEVIED UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 ITA NO.1009/MDS/2016 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E NGAGED IN THE PROFESSION OF CINE ARTIST AND MODELING FILED HE R RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON 25.09.201 0 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.89,69,894/-. THEREAFTE R THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 30.03.2012 ADMITTI NG HER TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,41,40,950/- IN WHICH THE SUM O F RS.3,51,71,053/- WAS OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME S AID TO BE ADVANCES RECEIVED. FURTHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX AT S OURCE FOR THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40 (A)(IA) OF THE ACT. AMT. RS . 1. AUDIT FEES : 1,00,000 2. COMMISSION & BROKERAGE 10,84,110 3. PROFESSIONAL CHARGES 10,48,912 4. SECURITY CHARGES 1,72,040 TOTAL RS. 24,05,062 4. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS OPINED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR P ENALTY UNDER 3 ITA NO.1009/MDS/2016 SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS:- I) AS REGARDS TO NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS APPLICABLE IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DISALLOWANCE OF RS.24,05,062/- WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AND THEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME ATTRACTING THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. II) IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DI SCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS.3,51,71,053/- BY DISCLOSING THE SA ME AS ADVANCES RECEIVED FOR FUTURE PERFORMANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN ACCEPTING THE SAME TO BE HER INCOME FOR THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HER INCOME ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED 4 ITA NO.1009/MDS/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER IN REGARD TO THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR RS. 3,51,71,053/- BEING TREATED AS INCOME FOR THE RELEV ANT ASSESSMENT YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVI SED RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DISCOVERY OF THE CONCEA LMENT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. MOREOVER IT WAS A CA SE WHERE THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ADVANCE PAYMENT BUT TO AVOID PROTRACTED LITIGATION, THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEDED THE SAME AS HER INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW & MERIT BECAUSE WHEN SUCH ADVANCES WAS TREATED AS THE INCOME FOR THE SAME YEAR DURING THE EARLIER ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME TO AVOID CONFRONTATION WITH THE REVENUE AND FURTHER REVISED HER RETURN FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR BEING THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE OF PENALTY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION MADE FOR NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX, 5 ITA NO.1009/MDS/2016 WE FIND THAT IT IS ONLY AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE COMM ITTED BY THE ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT B E INVOKED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE HEREBY UPHOL D THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DELETING THE ENTIRE PENALTY OF RS. RS.1,1611,202/-. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF .