Dewan Chand Ved Parkash (HUF), Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 1176/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 117621514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RITESH MOHINDRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H L KARWA, VP AND SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA, AM ITA NO. 1176/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 DEWAN CHAND VED PARKASH V. I.T.O. VII(1), LUDHIA NA (HUF), BHARAT NAGAR LUDHIANA AAAHD 4756 N APPELLANT BY : SHRI RITESH MOHINDRA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 16.1.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 .01.2012 ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 14.9.2011, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENA LTY OF RS. 57,230/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APP ELLANT HAD NOT FILED THE INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME BUT H AD GIVEN THE TRUE FACTS TO HIS COUNSEL AND THE MISTAKE WAS ONLY DUE T O AN OVERSIGHT AND WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. 3. THE CA DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPE LLANT IS A REGULARLY TAX PAYER WHO HAS ALWAYS DISCLOSED HIS TR UE AND COMPLETE INCOME AND THE ABOVE SAID RENTAL INCOME HAS ALSO BE EN DULY SHOWN DURING THE LAST PRECEDING 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE MISTAKE DUE TO WHICH THE INCOME ESCAPED WAS A TECHN ICAL/CLERICAL ERROR AND THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MA LAFIDE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE BANK WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME THROUGH THE SAME HAD BEEN DULY SHOWN IN THE SCHEDULE TDS FORMING PART OF RETURN OF INCOME. 5. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNWAR RANTED, AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 1176/CHANDI/2011 DEWAN CHAND VED PARKASH (HUF) V. ITO . 2 2. ASSESSMENT IN THE MATTER UNDER APPEAL WAS COMPLE TED U/S 143(3) ON 30.10.2009 AFTER ADDING RS. 3,64,896 AND RS. 64, 019/- BEING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES R ESPECTIVELY. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE IMPUGNED INCOMES WERE NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ACCORDINGLY INITIATED. AFTER HEARIN G THE ASSESSEE, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 57,230/- ON THE ASS ESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS APPEAL, HE HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE EARLIER MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). HIS SUBMISSIONS IN BRIEF WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN THROUGH HIS COUNSEL SHRI N.C. MOHINDRA, ADVOCATE AFTER GIVING ALL THE MATERIALS AND DOCUMENTS RELEVA NT FOR CORRECTLY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IM PUGNED SUMS WERE INADVERTENTLY OMITTED DUE TO THE FAULT OF COMPUTER/ SOFTWARE OF THE DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO EITHER CONCEAL OR FURNISH INACCURATE P ARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY CON SIDERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY S TATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS TO HIS COUNS EL FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT HIS COUNSEL HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS FAULT IN THE COMPU TER/SOFTWARE OF THE DEPARTMENT WITH THE RESULT THAT THE DETAILS GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ENTERED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE FURNISHED FRESH COMPUTATION OF INCOME IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSE E REALIZED ERROR. THE AFORESAID FACTS STATED BY THE COUNSEL HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE ITA NO. 1176/CHANDI/2011 DEWAN CHAND VED PARKASH (HUF) V. ITO . 3 LD. CIT(A) THAT WERE SPECIFICALLY TAKEN BEFORE HIM. TAKING INTO ALL THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE ARE INCLINED TO CANCEL THE PENA LTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRM BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGL Y. 6. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24.01.2012 SD/- SD/- (H L KARWA) (D K SRIVAST AVA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNANT MEMB ER CHANDIGARH, 24.01.2012 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, DEWAN CHAND VED PARKASH (HUF) 2. THE RESPONDENT, ITO 3. THE CIT, LUDHIANA 4. THE CIT(A), LUDHIANA 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH