APURVA CHANDRAKANT SHAH, MUMBAI V. ACIT 18(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1500/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5605 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHTAR HANSARI
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 271(1)(c); 80C

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (AM) I.T.A. NO. 1500/MUM/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ) APURVA CHANDRAKANT SHAH 95A, 3 RD FLOOR SHANTINIKETAN MARIN DRIVE MUMBAI-400 002. PAN : AAFPS5189K VS . ACIT-53 AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-40020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE DEPARTMENT BY SHRI AKHTAR H. ANSARI DATE OF HEARING 17.09 . 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.09.2020 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 14.12.2018 FOR A.Y. 2013-14. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,066/-. 3. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNI NG INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT PROOF O F CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INADVERTEN TLY ADVANCED THE CLAIM OF A PAYMENT OF SAID SUM OF RS. 1,45,750/- U/S. 80C IN ADDITION TO CLAIM U/S. 80C FOR LIC, PPF AND NSC AMOUNTING TO RS. 60,951/-. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF RS. 60,951/-. ON THIS ISSUE PENALTY WAS ALSO LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN PENALTY ORDER IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED 2 DEDUCTION OF RS. 1,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 60,951/- . HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 12,066/- ON THE DIFFE RENCE OF RS. 36,198/-. 3. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. AGAINST THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT . 4. I HAVE HEARD LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT IN T HIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT EVEN MENTION AS TO WHAT WAS THE CLAIM OF A SSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 80C. HE HAS SIMPLY NOTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREAFTER HE HAS MADE COMPUTATION. THERE IS NOT EVEN WHISPER THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 36,198/-. IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES, I FIND THAT THERE IS COMPLETE LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE THE PENALT Y IN THIS REGARD IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED. MOREOVER, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CONTUMACIOUS TO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). IN THIS REG ARD I PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LARGER BENCH OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA (83 ITR 26) FOR THE PROPOSI TION THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE AUTHORITY MAY NOT LEVY PENALTY. A CCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THAT PENALTY OF RS. 12,066/- IN THIS CASE IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAN DS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF THE ITAT RULE S ON 22.9.2020. SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22/09/2020 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 3 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// ( ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) PS ITAT, MUMBAI