Smt. Alka Jindal, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 1517/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2916 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHAKANT SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPESH GARG S; SSH SHAANTANU JAIN
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 1517, 1518 & 1519 /DE L/ 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04 SMT. ALKA JINDAL, C/O - M/S. RRA TAXINDIA, D - 28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART - I, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE - 20(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AACPJ7966L ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY S/SH. SHAANTANU JAIN & DEEPESH GARG, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY SH. SUBHAKANT SAHU, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 14.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.12.2017 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 02/12/2013 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - XII, NEW DELHI [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A) ] IN RELATION TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) LEVI ED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2001 - 02 TO 2003 - 04 RESPECTIVELY . 2. IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT( A ) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) CONFIRMING THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS ALREADY 2 ITA NO.1517,1518 & 1519/DEL/2014 BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 2350 TO 2352/DEL/2008 FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 TO 2003 - 04 , THUS THE QUANTUM ADDITION STANDS DELETED AND THEREFORE , THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY , HE PRAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. SR. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND , RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MA TERIAL ON RECORD PARTICULARLY ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) . WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN P ARA - 7 OF THE ORDER HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED IN ASSESSEE S CASE. IN FACT THE LETTER DATED 22.11.2007 LACKS IN THE ASPECT OF RECORDING ANY SATISFACTION BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PARTY. THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS DISCLOSED THE SAID DOCUMENTS WHILE FILING THE RETURNS. IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SINCE THE A.O IS SAME, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SEPARATE HANDING OVER OF MATERIAL. THE SAME CAN BE SEEN ON PAGE 7 OF THE CIT(A) S ORDER. THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOTALLY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS IN - FACT IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE GIFTS AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERELY, ON THE SUSPICION, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R CANNOT MAKE ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN - FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) WAS VERY WELL AWARE THAT THE MANDATORY PROCEDURE WHICH HAS TO BE FOLLOWED IN CASE OF SEARCH WAS NOT AT ALL FOLLOWED IN ASSESSEE S CASE. THUS, THE ACTION UNDE R SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ITSELF IS NOT VALID. THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. AR ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE S CASE. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. ITA NO.2351/DEL/2008 & 2352/DEL/2008 FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 & 2003 - 04 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALSO HAVE SIMILAR ISSUE 3 ITA NO.1517,1518 & 1519/DEL/2014 THEREFORE THE SAME ORDER WILL FOLLOW. THEREFORE, ALL APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN OUR OPINION, WHEN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED IN ALL THE THREE YEARS INVOLVED, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CAN T SURVIV E . ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 4 T H DEC . , 201 7 . S D / - S D / - ( AMIT SHUKLA ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 4 T H DECEMBER , 201 7 . RK / - (D.T.D) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI