Sh. Virender Singh Bhadu, Ellenabad V. ITO, Sirsa

ITA 1461/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8270 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1461/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. VIRENDER SINGH BHADU, VS. THE ITO, C/O VIRENDER PUBLIC SCHOOL, WARD-2, SIRSA ELLANABAD, SIRSA PAN NO. AFYPB8151L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.03.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), HISAR DATED 29.09.2016 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 5,31,900/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. I HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 44,340/- FROM PROFESSION AN D OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1,10 ,144/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 45,94,200/- INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 29,49,860/-. THE ADDI TION OF RS. 23,47,120/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). (THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 23,47,120/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS STANDS CONF IRMED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY). ON THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS, THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT WAS INCURRED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND NOT BEFORE 1.4.1981 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE INDEXATION OF THE CAPITAL GAINS FOR IMPROV EMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND THERE WAS NO INCORRECT CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT S INCE THE ADDITION WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS, NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIABLE. 4. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS ( 2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) IT WAS HELD THAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WILL N OT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS FATHER CONSTRUCT ED THE SHOP AND AFTER HIS DEATH, HE HAS INHERITED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. T HE VALUE OF SHOP ON INDEXATION WAS COMPUTED ON ESTIMATE ONLY. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED VALUATION ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS ON 1.4.1981 WHICH WA S NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE BEING SUCCE SSOR UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF MAY NOT BE KNOWING CERTAIN DETAILS. SAME C OULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 6 TH MARCH, 2017 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR