ACIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Birbhan Goyal, Panchkula

ITA 157/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9211 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.MAHARISH PRASHANT KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 157/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ACIT, VS SHRI BIRBHAN GOYAL, CIRCLE 2(1), HOUSE NO. 52, CHANDIGARH. SECTOR 9, PANCHKULA. PAN: ACFPG9158E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VISHAL MOHAN (FOR SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH) DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-3, GURGAON DATED 30.10.20 15 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER IMPOSED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED MANN ER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. LD. CIT(APPEALS) THAT CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MANNER OF DISCLOSURE WAS NOT 2 SUBSTANTIATED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT IS NO T CORRECT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SHRI JAGDISH RAJ GOYAL, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE IN THE STAT EMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 16.01.2009 SURRENDERED RS. 4.5 CRORES ON HIS OWN BEHALF ALONGW ITH ASSESSEE AND OTHERS WHICH FIND MENTION IN THE STATE MENT. HE HAS ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE I NCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED. THE SURRENDER WAS MADE OUT OF BU SINESS ACTIVITIES ONLY. THEREFORE, PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABL E. 3. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THE SAME AND ALSO NOTED THAT SIMILAR ISSU E CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA 188/CHD/2015 IN THE CASE OF CIT CENTRAL, CIRCLE-2 V S SHRI HARMOHINDER SINGH CHADHA IN WHICH FOLLOWING THE DEC ISION OF GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER C.SHAH REPRODUCING THE ABOVE ORDER IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CANCELLED THE PENALTY HOLDING THE ISSUE TO BE COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE LD. DR S TATED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS BY ITAT CHANDIGARH B ENCH INCLUDING THE CASE OF HARMOHINDER SINGH CHADHA (SUP RA) REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CANCELING THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, 3 DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS NO MERIT. THE SAME IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL STANDS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (MAHARISH PRASHANT KUMAR) BHAV NESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST AUGUST,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD