ITO, Kumbakonam V. Dr. Graham Daniel, Mayiladuthurai

ITA 159/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8412 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SHREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Source of fund; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' ,$ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 159/MDS/2014 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), GANDHI NAGAR, KUMBAKONAM. V. DR.GRAHAM DANIEL, NO.1, PATTAMANGALA NEW STREET, MAYILADUTHURAI 609 806. PAN : ADWPG2696M (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.SHREEKANTH, JCIT ,-*+./ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE 0 .1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 30.08.2016 2!( .1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.09.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPALLI DATED 24.10.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT 2 I.T.A. NO. 159/MDS/2014 YEAR 2009-10 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 2. SHRI A.V.SHREEKANTH, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT IN THE SAVINGS BANK A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK, T.NAGAR BRANCH, CHENNAI TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 11,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.38,39,645/-. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL FOR SOURCE OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, LEVIED THE P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESEE SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIM ED THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WERE FROM THE DECEASED PARENTS. HOW EVER, NO MATERIAL WAS FILED EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OF BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO INDICATE THAT THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WAS FROM HIS FATHER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO THE EXTENT OF R S.50,66,418/- AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETE D THE PENALTY WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN THE BANK IS NOT A DISPUTE AND THE SAME WAS NOT 3 I.T.A. NO. 159/MDS/2014 DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IS FROM THEIR DECEASED PARENTS. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FA LSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL , WHEN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO SOUR CE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND THE SAME TO BE FALSE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EVEN THOUG H THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE A SSESSEE IS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION. ADMITTEDLY, THE RE ARE DEPOSITS IN 4 I.T.A. NO. 159/MDS/2014 THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SOURCE FOR DEPOSIT WAS FROM THEIR DECEASED PARENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SECTION 271(1)(C) C LEARLY SAYS THAT IF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY PART OF HIS INCOME OR FU RNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER MAY LEVY PENALTY. EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC TION 271 (C) FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATE RIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN, PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. IN THE CASE B EFORE US, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T THE SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IS FROM THEIR DECEASED PARENTS. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENA LTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 I.T.A. NO. 159/MDS/2014 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDING LY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. SP. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A) 4. 0 81 /CIT, 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.