ACIT, Trichy V. M/s. Dr.D.Dhass, Manapparai

ITA 1224/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61050 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C V PAVANA KUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1224(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. VS. DR. D.DHASS, 137A, MADURAI ROAD, MANAPPARAI. PAN AAGPD3592E. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO.851(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, DR. DH ASS PRAVEEN, WARD I(1), VS. 137A, PUTHANANTHAM ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. MANAPPARAI, TRICHY-621306 PAN AEOPD0016R. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI C.V.PAVANA KUMAR, IRS, JCIT RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI K.RAVI, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD APRIL, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD APRIL, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2006-07. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEES ARE FATHER AND SON, BOTH MEDIC AL DOCTORS. - - ITA 1224 &851 OF 2010 2 THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT TIRUCHIRAPAL LI, ON 3-5-2010 AND 10-3-2010. 2. IN THE CASE OF DR. D.DHASS, THE FATHER, THE APP EAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3). IN THE CASE OF DR. DHASS PRAVEEN, THE SON, THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 3. FIRST WE SHALL CONSIDER THE QUANTUM APPEAL FILE D IN THE CASE OF DR.D.DHASS. 4. THE REVENUE HAS OBJECTED TO THE RELIEFS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) BY DELETING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- 1. ` 11,90,000/- RECEIVED FROM FIVE CREDITORS 2. ` 4,10,000/- RECEIVED FROM MRS. PATEL 3. ` 2,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM MRS. ROCKIA BEEVI - - ITA 1224 &851 OF 2010 3 4. ` 3,44,000/- BEING RENT ADVANCE 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). IN RESPECT O F THE FIRST TWO ITEMS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS, THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT INTRODUCED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER APPEAL. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ADDITIONS ALSO, TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS EXAMINED THE FACTS IN A DETAILED MANNER AND RELIEFS WERE GRANTED ON SOUND REASONINGS . 6. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPE ALS) IN THE CASE OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT. 7. NEXT WE SHALL CONSIDER THE PENALTY APPEAL IN TH E CASE OF DR.DHASS PRAVEEN. 8. AN ADDITION OF ` 6 LAKHS HAS BEEN MADE IN THIS CASE, WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS GIFT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW. ANOTHER AMOUNT DISALLOWE D BY THE - - ITA 1224 &851 OF 2010 4 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ` 49,000/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ABOVE TWO AMO UNTS OF ` 6 LAKHS AND ` 49,000/- WERE ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. THESE ADDITIONS WERE NOT CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT AND TH E FILE WAS CLOSED. 9. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE TWO ADDITIONS T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED A PENALTY OF ` 2,56,342/-. WE DO NOT FIND ANY PRESSING GROUND TO GO TO THE EXTENT OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` 6 LAKHS WAS GIFTED BY HIS FATHER-IN- LAW. THERE IS NO CASE THAT THE FATHER-IN-LAW HAD NO RESOURCES TO GIVE SUCH AN AMOUNT. THE ONLY MATTER IS THAT THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE MATTER FURTHER. BUT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE A DDITION IS A STRAIGHT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS. LIKEWISE, A SMALL AMOUNT OF ` 49,000/- ALSO DOES NOT - - ITA 1224 &851 OF 2010 5 MAKE OUT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS. 10. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY. 11. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 23 RD OF APRIL, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD APRIL, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.