Smt. R.Sasirupa, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1522/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 152221714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JUNIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAGHU
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1522/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SMT. R. SASIRUPA, NO.7-B, HARI GARDEN, NEAR RAMANUJAM NAGAR, UPPILIPALAYAM, COIMBATORE 641 015. PAN : AOIPS1381L (APPELLANT) V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE III, COIMBATORE. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. RAGHU, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JUNIOR STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2012 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITS GRIEVAN CE IS THAT CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 13,11,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). I.T.A. NO. 1522/MDS/12 2 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, WHO WAS DOING C ONTRACT WORK OF BUILDING MOBILE SIGNAL TOWERS, WAS SUBJECTED TO A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133 ON 24.1.2008. AS PER THE REVENUE, IT W AS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LANDS DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR RELEVANT TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, FOR WHICH PAYMENTS WERE M ADE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEEDS. THE AMOUNTS SO PAID IN EXCESS CAME TO ` 13,11,000/-. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW SUCH AMOUNT IN HER ORIGINAL RETURN, LATER ON, SHE FILED A REVISED RETURN IN WHICH ` 13,11,000/- WAS ALSO SHOWN AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ACCEPTING THE REVI SED RETURN. NEVERTHELESS, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. AS PER THE A.O., BUT FOR THE SURVEY, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE ADMITTE D SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEEDS AND AS MENTIONED IN RESPECTIVE SAL E AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE HAD FILED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME AND CONCEALED A SUM OF ` 13,11,000/-. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, HE LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 3. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(APPEALS), WH O UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSING OFFICER COULD I.T.A. NO. 1522/MDS/12 3 CLEARLY BRING OUT THE ACT OF CONCEALMENT AND FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 4. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN TH E CASE OF THE VERY SAME ASSESSEE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, TH ERE WAS A SIMILAR LEVY OF PENALTY WHICH, HOWEVER, WAS DELETED BY THIS TRIBUNAL ON REVENUES APPEAL. PLACING BEFORE US A COPY OF T HE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A. NO. 1393/MDS/2011 DATED 31 ST MAY, 2012, LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE S AID ASSESSMENT YEAR, WAS DISMISSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. LEARNED D.R. FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE MATTER STOOD DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE SUBMIS SIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDI TIONAL INCOME OF ` 13,11,000/- ONLY IN THE REVISED RETURN. THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.6.2008, THERE IS NOTHING WHATSOEVER THEREIN WHICH WOULD SHO W THAT SUCH REVISED RETURN WAS FILED CONSEQUENT TO A SURVEY. N OTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY ITEM OF INCOME, WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED OR ON WHICH ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESS ING OFFICER HAD SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRIMA FACIE CONC EALED AND I.T.A. NO. 1522/MDS/12 4 PRIMA FACIE PROVIDED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, WHERE I T WAS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER THAT REVISED RETURN WAS FILED CONSEQUENT TO A SURVEY, TH IS TRIBUNAL ON REVENUES APPEAL, HELD AT PARA 7 OF ITS ORDER DATED 31 ST MAY, 2012 MENTIONED SUPRA, AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO DISPUT E THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED INCOME OF ` 32,75,155/-, ONLY AND HAD REVISED THIS TO ` 72,02,155/- IN HER REVISED RETURN. THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS MENTIONED THA T THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE SURVEY, NOTHING IS MENTIONED THEREIN WHICH WOULD SHOW WHAT WAS THE ITEM OF INCOM E, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED AS CONCEALED OR ON WHICH INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. JUST BECAUS E ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN SUBSEQUENT TO A SURVEY, IT C OULD NOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY INCOME OR GIVEN ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN IN T HE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY STATED TH AT A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO INVESTMENT MADE BY THE A SSESSEE ON PURCHASE OF LAND WERE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. BUT WHAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE AND HOW IT WERE EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND HOW IT WAS LINKED TO THE REV ISED RETURN ARE NOT DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR P ENALTY ORDER. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C .I.T. VS. DR. R.GOPALA KRISHNAN (TCA NO.520 OF 2010 DATED 05.07.2 010) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO HOLD THAT A NY SUPPRESSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WILFUL AND DELIBERATE, THERE COULD NOT BE A LEVY OF PENALTY. WHILE COMING TO THIS DECISION, THEIR LORDSHIPS CONSIDERED THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDIA AND OTH ERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILES PROCESSORS AND OTHERS IN 306 I TR 277 I.T.A. NO. 1522/MDS/12 5 (SC) AS WELL AS THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF UNION O F INDIA AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILL, (2 3 DTR 158). WE ARE OF THE OPINION HERE ALSO THAT THERE WAS NO W ILFUL OR DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION OF FACTS OR ANY INACCURATE P ARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. LEVY OF PENALTY WAS RIGH TLY DELETED. NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 6. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T PENALTY LEVIED FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED . SUCH PENALTY IS DELETED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON TUESDAY, T HE 9 TH OF OCTOBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH OCTOBER, 2012. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-I, COIMBATORE (4) CIT-I, COIMBATORE (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE