Income Tax Officer, V. Shri Vinay Karsoliya, Jabalpur

ITA 131/JAB/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2151 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 131 /JAB/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.131/JAB/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR. VS. SHRI RAM VINAY KARSOLIYA, 37, MAIN ROAD, VILLAGE-JHAMAR, POST-UDNA PATAN, JABALPUR. PAN:BGOPK 7975 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-1, JABALPUR DATED 07/03/2014 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 25/06/2012 FRAMED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JABALPUR. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE FILED PERUSED AND HEARD LEARNED D.R. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVEN UE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING PENALTY OF RS.63,00,000/- IMPOSE D U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,75,300/-. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT ON 05/03/2009 AT THE PREMISES OF M/S REWA SIKSHAN SAMI TI, MADHOTAL, JABALPUR OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CHAIRMAN. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED IN WHICH ASSESSEE SURRENDE RED AN AMOUNT OF APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SHRI I. P. KHANDELWAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 06/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07/11/2017 I.T.A. NO. 131 /JAB/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 2 RS.2,00,75,300/- AS HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 AND AGREED TO PAY TAX THEREON. POST DATED CHEQU ES OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH TOTALING TO RS.60,00,000/- WERE GIVEN TO THE R EVENUE AUTHORITIES OUT OF WHICH THREE INSTALLMENTS WERE PAID DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REMAINING WERE PAID BEFORE THE FILING OF RE TURN OF INCOME. 3. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT. IT WAS ONLY DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED T HE SURRENDERED INCOME AND PAID THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF TAX. ASSES SMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 28/12/2011 ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.18, 100/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,42,800/- AFTER MAKING THE A DDITION FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.2,00,75,300/-. SUBSEQUENT THERETO, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED AND ASSESS EE WAS HELD TO HAVE FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY NOT SHOWI NG THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN VOLUNTARILY AND ACC ORDINGLY PENALTY OF RS.63,00,000/- WAS IMPOSED. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED AS CIT(A) DELETED T HE IMPUGNED PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RETRACTED FR OM THE STATEMENT GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND PAID PART OF THE TA X IN ADVANCE AND THE SURRENDER AMOUNT WAS INADVERTENTLY NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DUE TO THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE REMAINI NG AMOUNT OF TAX BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE, NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LEARNED D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE OR DER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT 50% OF THE COMMITTED TAX LIABILITY WAS PAID BEFORE THE FILING OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN IN I.T.A. NO. 131 /JAB/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 3 THE FORM OF POST DATED CHEQUES GIVEN TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE DELETION OF PENALTY OF RS.63 LAKHS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND T HAT THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT ON 05/03/2009 WHICH IS BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR OF WHICH THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN WAS 31 ST JULY, 2009. DURING SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED RS.2 ,00,75,300/- AND AGREED TO PAY TAX. POST DATED CHEQUES WERE GIVEN T O THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. FIRST THREE CHEQUES OF RS.10 LAKHS EA CH WERE CLEARED ON THE RESPECTIVE DATES MENTIONED ON THE CHEQUES. REMAINI NG THREE INSTALLMENT WERE FINALLY PAID IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. U NDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SURRENDERED INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN WHICH WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND REMAINING TAX LIABILITY WERE PAID. ISSUE BEFORE US IS THAT WHETHER ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY EITHER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALES THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHES INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CASE EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHO W THE SURRENDERED INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN BUT IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT EVEN NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THAT ASSES SEE PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS.30 LAKHS IN THE FORM OF THREE CHEQUES GIVEN TO T HE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND HE DID NOT CLAIM THIS ADVANCE TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THIS FACT SUBSTANTIATES THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT DUE TO INADVERTENCE ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL, THE SURRENDERED INCOME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO CLAIM THE REFUND OF TAX PAID IN ADVANCE. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE, HE IMMEDIATELY I.T.A. NO. 131 /JAB/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 4 ACCEPTED TO INCLUDE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE REMAINING TAX. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE GIVE N FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENT ION OF HIDING HIS INCOME AND THEREFORE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THE REFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DETAILED FINDING OF CIT(A) DELETIN G THE PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2 017 SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:07/11/2017 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., ASST T. REGISTRAR