Smt. Renu Garg, Ludhiana V. ITO, W-7(3), Ludhiana

ITA 1278/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3864 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU CIT
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M ITA NO.1278/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT. RENU GARG 61-A, SANT NAGAR, CIVIL LINES LUDHIANA, PUNJAB THE ITO W-7(3), RISHI NAGAR LUDHIANA, PUNJAB PAN NO: ACZPG7152L APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, C.A #!' REVENUE BY : SH. DAYA INDER SINGH SIDHU, ADDL. C IT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 29/10/2020 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/10/2020 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT . 28/08/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3 LUDHIANA. 2. FOLLOWING GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, LUDHIANA IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS SHE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 11,43,300/-. 3. FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY OF RS. 11,43,300/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS WA S INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SMT NEELU GARG SISTER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS ARE IDE NTICAL IN BOTH THE CASES AND THE ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH SM C BENCH IN ITA NO. 2 1472/CHD/2018 VIDE ORDER DT. 26/04/2019. HE ALSO FUR NISHED A CHART DEPICTING THE SIMILARITY OF THE EVENTS IN BOTH THE AFORESAID CASES, WHI CH READ AS UNDER: A/Y 2014-15 PARTICULARS SMT. RENU GARG SMT. NEELU GARG RETURN OF INCOME FILED 06.11.2014 04.11.2014 NOTICE U/S 143(2) ISSUED ON 18.09.2015 18.09.2015 A COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE MADE BY FILING POA. NO INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR AND AS SUCH NO INFORMATION WAS FILED 05.10.2015 05.10.2015 SUMMONS ISSUED BY ADIT(INV)-II, LUDHIANA ON 29.09.2015 29.09.2015 LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE DDIT, LUDHIANA ON 12.10.2015 12.10.2015 NOTICE U/S 142(1) ISSUED ON 08.04.2016 08.04.2016 REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) DT. 08.04.2016 FILED ON 27.04.2016 24.06.2016 ORDER U/S 143(3) PASSED ON 04.08.2016 28.10.2016 DATE OF DEPOSIT OF TAX 12.10.2015 12.10.2015 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTI CED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH SMC BENCH IN ITA NO. 1472/CHD/2018 IN CASE OF SMT. NEELU GARG VS. ITO VIDE ORDER DT. 26/04/2019 AND AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SEQUENC E OF THE EVENTS IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE AND HER SISTER IN LAW SMT. NEELU GARG( SUPRA) ARE SIMILAR WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CHART FURNISHED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEELU GARG (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UND ER: 10. THE ASSESSEE SUOMOTO SURRENDERED RS.37 LACS AND FILED THE REVISED STATEMENT OF NET ASSESSABLE INCOME AND DEPOSITED THE DUE TAX ON THE SAID SURRENDER ON 12.10.2015. THE A.O. ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 8.4 .2016 AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAILS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37 LACS. I T IS NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNI SHED VARIOUS DETAILS ASKED BY THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 30.4.2016, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE NO.16 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AND INFORMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.37 LACS WAS SURRENDERED (EQUIVALENT TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.36,23,134/- ) AND AN AMOUNT OF R S.12,55,871/- AS INCOME TAX & INTEREST THEREON WAS DEPOSITED ON 12.10.2015. THEREFORE, FR OM THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SUOMOTO SURRENDERED AN AMOU NT OF RS.37 LACS BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE INCOME TAX POINTED OUT ANY UNDIS CLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I T IS NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE D.D. I . ( INVE STIGATION- II ) , LUDHIANA VIDE LETTER DATED 12.10.2015 ( IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMON U/S 131(1A) OF THE ACT DATED 29.9.2015) THAT A 3 RECOMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME WAS FILED, WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS.37 LACS WAS SURRENDERED UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS INCOME , WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NOS.9 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, WHICH ARE THE COPI ES OF THE REPLY, COMPUTATION INCOME AND COPY OF CHALLAN IN RESPECT OF TAX AND INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.12,55,871/- , DEPOSITED ON 12.10.2015. IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE A.O. GOT THE INVESTIGATION REPORT FROM THE PRINCIPAL CIT- I , LUDHIANA VIDE LETTER DATED 24.2.2016 THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN BROKERS IN DIFFERENT TOWNS, WHO CONTACTED THE PROSPECTIVE CLIENTS AND TOOK PAPE R BOOK ENTRIES, THIS FACT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AT PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 8.10.2016. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUOMOTO SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.37 LACS MUCH BEFORE THE SAID DATE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT POINTED OUT TO THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.37 LACS HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . ON THE CONTRARY , THE ASSESSEE HERSELF SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.37 LACS AND PAID THE DUE TAXES & INTER EST ON THE SAID SURRENDERED INCOME ON 12.10.2015 MUCH BEFORE THE DISCREPANCY, IF ANY, WAS POINTED OUT BY ANY OF THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTION; HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ IV GARG (2009) 313 ITR 256 (SUPRA) H ELD AS UNDER: THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD RECORDED A PURE FINDING OF FACT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE REVENUE HAD NOT PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO DI SCHARGE ITS BURDEN OF PROVING CONCEALMENT . NO SUCH FINDING WAS RECORDED IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER . THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SO OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS DONE IN GOOD FAITH AND TO BUY PEACE. THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY I F HE FAILS TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH I S FOUND TO BE FALSE BY ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED I N WHICH THE ENTIRE INCOME WAS SURRENDERED WITH AN EXPLANATION. THE REVISED RETURN WAS REGULARIZED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD FAILED TO TAKE ANY OBJECT I ON THAT THE DECLARATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURN AND HIS EXPLA NATION WERE NOT BONAFIDE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECT ION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT . 11. BY FOL LOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT , THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH A IN THE CASE OF AJAY SANGARI & CO. VS. ADDL .CIT (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 10. THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAD PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF RAJESH CHAWLA (SUPRA ). ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BE FORE THE HON'BLE COURT, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE A MEMBER OF GROUP KNOWN AS M/S. BAL DAV ELECTRICALS, LUDHIANA AGAINST WHICH INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE INTELLIGENCE WING THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE GROUP WERE INDULGING IN TAX EVASION BY SHOWING INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF INVESTIGATION THE PERS ONS WERE ASKED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE ABOUT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTS BEING PRODUCED THE SAID PERSONS OFFERED TO DISCLOSE INCOME/S SUBJECT T O NO PENALTY. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IT COULD NOT BE HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD (SIC - NOT) CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO B E LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.37 LACS AND PAID THE DUE TAX ALONGWITH INTEREST THEREON MUC H BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING OR THE A.O. POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY ABOUT THE UNDI SCLOSED OR CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I , THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. THIS FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THEREFORE, I T IS MADE CLEAR THAT IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A PRECEDENT IN THE OTHER CASES . SINCE THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. NEELU GARG(SUPRA) ARE SIMILAR WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE CHART REPRODUCE D IN PARA 4 OF THIS ORDER, SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDE R DT. 26/04/2019 IN ITA NO. 4 1472/CHD/2018 IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEELU GARG VS. ITO, THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C)OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/10/2020) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 29/10/2020 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE