Smt Anuva Bhattacharjee, Kolkata V. ITO, WD-53(2), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 1471/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9293 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM] I.T.A NO. 1471/KOL/20 14 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-1 0 SMT. ANUVA BHATTACHARJEE -VS.- I.T.O., WA RD-53(2) KOLKATA KOLKATA [PAN : ANCPB 0997J] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 02.03.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.03.2017. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2014 OF C.I.T.(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA RELATING TO A.Y.2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREBY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE A SSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PENAL TY WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO ARE AS FOLLOWS : THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO ON SCRUTINY OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN AIR AND ITS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAID BY M/S. CRISIL LTD., A SUM OF RS.2,24,000/- AS TECHNICAL SERVICE FEES. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THAT THIS SUM HAD NOT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE AFORESAID SUM BEING ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . THE AO ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE AFORESAID SUM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO.1471/KOL/2014 SMT. ANUVA BHATTACHARJEE A.YR.2009-10 2 4. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS AFORESAID, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN OF I NCOME AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO CONCEAL ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT M/S. CRISIL LTD HAD DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMEN T MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE NOT TO DECLARE THE AFORESAID ITEM OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE POINTE D OUT THAT WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO THE ASSESSEE READILY AGREED T O THE ADDITION AND THEREFORE THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT CALLED FOR. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HOWEVER REJECTED BY THE AO. 5. ACCORDING TO THE AO HAD THE RETURN OF INCOME NOT BEEN PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY, THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF FEES FROM CRISIL BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GOT AWAY WITH NOT DECLARING THE AFORESAID INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ORDER OF AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO.36 HAS BEEN RETURNED WITH THE POSTAL ENDORSEMENT LEFT . THE LD. DR SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT BUT THE PRAYER FOR AD JOURNMENT WAS REJECTED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A ) AND ALSO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUE AND THAT THE PAYEE HAD DULY DEDUCT ED TAX AT SOURCE ON THE PAYMENT 3 ITA NO.1471/KOL/2014 SMT. ANUVA BHATTACHARJEE A.YR.2009-10 3 MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE TAX DUE AND PAYABLE ON THE INCOME IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY REACHED THE COFFERS OF THE REVENUE. WHEN TH E FACT THAT THE RECEIPT FROM M/S. CRISIL LTD WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, SHE IMMEDIATELY AGREED TO THE ADDITION AND ALSO APPRAIS ED THE AO THAT NON DISCLOSURE OF THE SAID RECEIPT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS INADVERTEN T AND NOT WILLFUL. THIS CIRCUMSTANCE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THERE WAS NEITHER AN ATTEMPT TO C ONCEAL PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE NOR TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS THER EOF. WE THEREFORE ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSE AND HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT CALLED FOR. WE THEREFO RE CANCEL THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE C OURT ON 08.03.2017. SD/- SD/- [DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI] [ N.V.VASUDEVA N ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 08.03.2017. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. ANUVA BHATTACHARJEE, FL.NO.2A, )\P-9, GRIHA LAXMI, BAISNABGHATA, KOLKATA- 700094. 2. I.T.O., WARD-53(2), KOLKATA. 3. CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA 4. C.I.T.-XVIII , KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES 4 ITA NO.1471/KOL/2014 SMT. ANUVA BHATTACHARJEE A.YR.2009-10 4