SHRI DEEPAK BAID, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, Jaipur

ITA 1111/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6242 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Proportionate interest
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1111/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DEEPAK BAID, B-114A, TEJ KUNJ, DAYANAND MARG, TILAK NAGAR, JAIPUR- 302004. CUKE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AEQPB 5538 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HIMANSHU GOYAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/01/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD.CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 31/07/2018 FOR THE A.Y.2009-10 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 15,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED RS. 1.60 LACS TO M/S BHAWANI GAS SERVICE. D URING THE ITA 1111/JP/2018_ DEEPAK BAID VS DCIT 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF, M/S BHAWANI GAS SERVICE REPA ID SOME PART OF THE ADVANCE MONEY. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WAS GIVEN TO THE A SSESSEE BY M/S BHAWANI GAS SERVICE AS REGARDS THE BIFURCATION OF AM OUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF PORTION OF INTEREST AND PRINCIPAL. IN TH E NEXT YEAR, BALANCE FULL AND FINAL AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S BHAWANI GAS SERVICE. THE EXCESS AMOUNT RECEIVED OVER AND ABOVE T HE ORIGINAL AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CREDITED AND OFFER ED FOR TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 43,867/- UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST R ECEIVED ACCOUNT. WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT PROPORTIONATE INTEREST RELATING TO THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , THEREFORE, LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 15,000/-, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE L D. CIT(A), AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUN D FROM THE RECORD THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN REPAID TO THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE YEAR WAS WITHOUT BIFURCATION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT OFFER THE PROPORTIONATE INTEREST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, HOWEVER, IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEN THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS RECEI VED, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AMOUNT RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE P RINCIPAL AS INTEREST INCOME AND ALSO PAID TAX THEREON. THUS, THERE DOES N OT APPEAR TO BE ANY ITA 1111/JP/2018_ DEEPAK BAID VS DCIT 3 CONSCIOUS INTENTION OF ASSESSEE TO CONCEAL PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME IN SO FAR AS THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS SOON AS BIFURCATIO N OF LOAN AND INTEREST WAS RECEIVED DURING THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE INTER EST INCOME IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUBSEQUENT YEAR IN THE RETURN FILED IN DUE COURSE. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT EVEN IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR V ERIFYING THE ACTUAL POSITION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO D ELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 15,000/-. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO JES'K LH 'KEKZ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24 TH JANUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI DEEPAK BAID, JAIPUR. ITA 1111/JP/2018_ DEEPAK BAID VS DCIT 4 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1111/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR