Shri Laxmanbhai Rambhai Jalu,HUF, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(2), Surat

ITA 1212/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6146 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 121 2 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH, SMC , AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO. 121 2 /AHD/201 3 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 0 5 - 06 LAXMANBHAI RAMBHAI JALU (HUF), ..... .......... .APPELLANT 71, KASTURBA CO - OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIM ITED, NEAR NEW ERA SCHOOL, RANDER ROAD, SURAT 395 009. [PAN: A ADHJ 8643 P ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3 ( 2 ), SURAT. .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: RAJESH M. UPADHYAY , FOR THE APPELLANT D INESH SINGH , FOR THE RESPONDEN T D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 1 4 . 0 2 . 201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 26 .04. 2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH 201 3 , PASSED BY THE LEARNED C IT(A) , UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.7,21,775/ - IMPOSED O N THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 06 . 2. THE ONLY G RIEVANCE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS : - LEARNED CIT(A) - IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO CONFIRM LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ITO, WARD 3(2), SURAT U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THOUGH THERE IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT. 3. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS GRIEVA NCE, A FEW MATERIAL FACTS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AN OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS 20,20,212 OUT OF ITA NO. 121 2 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 2 OF 4 ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND RS 1,45,950 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR ON THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE FORM FATHER AND UNCLE OF THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO THE HUF MEMBERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE SAME, AND HELD THAT LARGE CASH BALANCE HAVING BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BELIEVABLE EXPLANATION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE 7/12 EXTRACTS DONOT SHOW THE ASSESSEE AS CULTIVATOR BUT THE OWNERS OF LAND IN THAT CAPACITY. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT OWNERS OF THE LAND ARE NOT SHOWING THE SAME AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) A ND THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED METICULOUS RECORDS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THESE RECORDS WERE ALSO SHOWN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON, THEREFORE, TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE MERELY ON SUSPICIONS. AS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR S AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND ALL THE NECESSARY EXPENSES AND THAT THE REJECTI ON OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DONE IN A VERY SUMMARY MANNER. IN YET ANOTHER TURN OF EVENTS, THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE HOLDING THAT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER COUPLED WITH MAINTE NANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEEM TO BE VERY A PPEALING CONCLUDED THAT CRUCIAL ASPECT OF RETAINING CASH BALANCE IN HAND OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME ETC MAKES THE WHOLE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNBELIEVABLE. THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) WAS THUS VACATED. THE MATTER DID NOT STOP AT THAT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ALSO IMPOSED A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUN AL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. ITA NO. 121 2 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 3 OF 4 5. I FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE RELATED QUANTUM ADDITIONS ARE CONCERNED, NOT ONLY THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION, EVEN A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS DESCRIBED THIS EXPLANATION TO BE VERY APPEALING AS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATION, IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER COUPLED WITH MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEEM TO BE VERY APPEALING . HOWEVER, SUCH AN EXPLANATION HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE CASH FOR UNREASONABLY LONG PERIOD AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO GIVE DETAILS OF LOANS OR PRODUCING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS. IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT, AND EVEN WHEN AN EXPLANATION MAY BE REJECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WANT OF CERTAIN A DDITIONAL DETAILS, AS IN THIS CASE, SUCH AN EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY SUFFICE SO FAR AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED AS THE SAID EXPLANATION IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN TO THE HILT. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE W AS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR UNTRUE, AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS INDEED NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PR OPER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS 7,21,775. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF APRIL , 2017 . SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL , 2017 . PBN/* ITA NO. 121 2 / AHD / 201 3 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 0 5 - 06 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FI LE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD