Sh. Prabhjit Singh Sidhu, Mohali V. DCIT, Circle (Intl. Taxation), Chandigarh

ITA 1601/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7496 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH SMD, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1601/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI PRABHJIT SINGH SIDHU, VS. THE D.C.I.T., F-502, RISHI APARTMENT, CIRCLE-CHANDIGARH SECTOR 70, MOHALI. (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CHANDIGARH. PAN: BIPPS2213D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS)- 43, NEW DELHI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(APPEA LS)) DATED 11.9.2017, UPHOLDING PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WERE VALID EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD FAILED TO MENTION WHETHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271( L)(C) ISSUED WAS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN UTTER DISREGARD OF DECISIONS OF AND AS SUCH PENALTY UPHELD IN PURSUANCE OF AN INVALID NOTICE IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFI ED. ITA NO.1601/CHD/201 7 A.Y. 2009-10 2 2., WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS.1,52,960/- UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY REASON ING ON MERITS OF THE CASE WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) O F THE ACT IS NOT IMPOSABLE IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND THE SA ME IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. AS FAR AS THE REST GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFO RE US THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE S AID GROUNDS RELATED TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE WHEREIN T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT BE CHARGED TO HAVE EITHER CONCEALED OR FURNISHED AN Y INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) HAD FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE ON MERITS RAISED BEFORE IT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESS EE POINTED OUT THAT PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE HAD BEEN LEVIE D ON THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.4,5 0,000/- REMAINING UNEXPLAINED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT BEF ORE THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED BOTH THE LE GAL GROUNDS AND HAD ALSO ARGUED THE CASE ON MERITS. DRA WING OUR ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON MERITS BE FORE THE CIT(A), REPRODUCED IN PARA 3, PAGE 3 &4 OF THE ITA NO.1601/CHD/201 7 A.Y. 2009-10 3 CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE CIT(A) THAT THE CA SH HAD BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE FIRST COUSIN OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS A MAN OF MEANS AND SINCE HE HAD EXPIRED, NO EVIDENC E IN THIS REGARD COULD BE GATHERED. IT WAS POINTED OUT T HAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME, THE ADDITION HAD BEEN UPHELD I N APPEAL ALSO. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED O UT THAT COPY OF REPLY ,DEATH CERTIFICATE ETC. HAD ALL BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED TO THE CIT(A PPEALS), THAT MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION HAD BEEN UPHELD DID N OT LEAD TO AUTOMATIC LEVY OF PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD ONLY DEALT WITH THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NOT DEALT WITH THE CONTENTIONS RAISED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, PLEADED THAT THE ISSUE BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. THE LD. DR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONSIDER IT FIT TO REST ORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ADJUD ICATE THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. IT IS FURTHER DIRECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN DUE OPP ORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IS FREE TO ADDUCE ALL EVIDENCES IN S UPPORT OF ITS CONTENTIONS. ITA NO.1601/CHD/201 7 A.Y. 2009-10 4 GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.2, 3 & 4 ARE THEREFORE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, TH EREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH JULY, 2018 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH