R.Rajakumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1548/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86317 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P RANGA RAMANUJAM
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . ! '# , $ % BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1548/MDS/2013 $ # '# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI P. RAJAKUMAR, NO.32, POONAMALEE HIGH ROAD, KOYAMBEDU, CHENNAI - 600 107. PAN : ADVPR 3444 H V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE IV, CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RANGA RAMANUJAM, CA +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT ! - / / DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2015 0' - / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.02.2015 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V III, CHENNAI, DATED 12.04.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 08-09. 2 I.T.A. NO. 1548/MDS/2013 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN TILES AND MARBLES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 9,54,933/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T 'THE ACT'). THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A.O. HAS OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONDUCTING A BUSINESS IN THE NAME AND S TYLE OF (1) M/S RAJAN HOMES (THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTION OF FLA TS) AND (2) M/S RAJAN TILES (DOING BUSINESS AS DEALER IN TILES AND MARBLES). IN RESPECT OF M/S RAJAN HOMES, THE A.O. HAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE OF FLATS S OLD AND ADMITTED SALE VALUE AS PER DOCUMENTS, WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE-1 OF A LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 18.12.2010. THE ADMITTED SALE VALUE OF FLATS SOLD IS OBTAINED FROM THE SAME ANNEX URE AND IT REFERS TO THE SALE VALUE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DI FFERENCE IN THE SALE VALUE OF FLATS IS ` 5,44,500/-. IN RESPECT OF M/S RAJAN TILES, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL BANK BALAN CE IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH KARNATAKA BANK, AS PER THE BANK STA TEMENT, AND THE BANK BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALAN CE SHEET. ON BOTH THESE COUNTS, THE A.O. MADE VERIFICATION. SUB SEQUENTLY, THE A.O. HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUING N OTICE UNDER 3 I.T.A. NO. 1548/MDS/2013 SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CALLING EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O., DURI NG THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE REASON FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE OF THE FLATS SOLD AND ADMITTED SALE VALUE OF THE SAME FLATS IS THAT THE CASH RECEIPT OF ` 5,44,500/- WAS INADVERTENTLY OMITTED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ACCOUNT ANT AS THE COPY OF THE SALE DOCUMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF ACCOUNTS. THE CASH RECEIPT INFORMATION WAS ALSO NO T AVAILABLE. IN RESPECT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL BANK B ALANCE IN KARNATAKA BANK AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE BA NK BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED HIS IN ABILITY DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF PARTICULARS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO INTENTION OR WILFUL OMISSION TO CONCEAL ANY INCOME. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM WAS INADVERTENT MISTAKE. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT AGREEING WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WHERE THE LD. CI T(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 4 I.T.A. NO. 1548/MDS/2013 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SA LE VALUE OF FLATS SOLD AND ADMITTED SALE VALUE OF FLATS WAS INADVERTE NTLY OMITTED TO BE RECORDED BY THE ACCOUNTANT BECAUSE THE COPY OF THE SALE DOCUMENT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF FINALIZATION OF TH E ACCOUNTS. IT IS ONLY AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. THE COPIES OF THE SAL E DEEDS WERE PURCHASED BEFORE THE A.O. BASED ON THESE COPIES FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY THE A.O. CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT TH ERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF AMOUNTS. IN SOFAR AS BANK BALANCE IN THE KARNATAKA BANK AND BANK BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF PARTICULARS, THERE IS A MINOR DIFFERENCE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE EXPLANATION GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. THE A.O. SIMPLY REJECTED THE EX PLANATION AND 5 I.T.A. NO. 1548/MDS/2013 INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, CANCEL THE PENALTY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ! '# ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, = /DATED, THE 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. KRI. > - +$/?@ A@'/ /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. +,)* /RESPONDENT 3. ! B/ () /CIT(A)-VIII, CHENNAI 4. ! B/ /CIT-VI, CHENNAI-34 5. @D' +$/$ /DR 6. 'E# F /GF.