Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9132 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-03-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
28-03-2016
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
15-06-2011
Judgement Text
, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1651/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DR. CHANDRAHAS A. DESAI, B/2, STATUS APARTMENT, OPP. NAVRANGPURA TELE. EXCHANGE, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN : ACJPD 5052 C VS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-15, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, AR REVENUE BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/03/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/03/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, A HMEDABAD DATED 09.05.2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- 1. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY AND GRIEVOUSLY E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND CONSIDERING THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN ITS RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND SPIRIT IN RESPECT OF CONFIRMI NG THE LEVY OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE HAS ALSO N OT APPRECIATED THE BASIC FACT THAT YOUR APPELLANT HAD SUO-MOTO AND VOL UNTARILY DRAWN THE ATTENTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPE CT OF THE DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST INCOME CALCULATED ON THE GOI BONDS AND THE BANK FDR WHICH WERE SHOWN AND REFLECTED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME O F CURRENT YEAR AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND HENCE, IT IS PRAYED T O CANCEL THE LEVY OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(L)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT IN TOTO. ITA NO. 1651/AHD/2011 DR. CHANDRAHAS A. DESAI VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 2 2. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ALSO GROSSLY AND GRIEVOU SLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF ABSENCE OF POINTING OUT THE SPECIFIC ALLEGED DEFAULT COMMITTED BY YOUR APPELLANT AS TO WHETHER YOUR APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED ANY OF HI S INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. HE HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE BASIC FACT THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT PINPOINTED THE SPECIFIC ALLEGED DEFAULT IN HIS ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN PENALTY ORDER AND HENCE, IN VIEW OF PRONOWNED DE CISIONS, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELING THE PENALTY ORDER IN TOTO. 3. FURTHER, THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE APPELL ANT ORDER WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING SUBMIS SION AND ARGUMENT OF YOUR APPELLANT IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER AND HENCE, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY SUBMITS THAT SINCE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ACIT AND THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) CA N NOT CONSIDERED AS SPEAKING ORDER, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELI NG BOTH THE ORDERS IN TOTO. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF ASSESS EE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') WA S FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 23.08.2010. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.33,686/-, ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERE NCE IN THE INTEREST INCOME OFFERED AND EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME AND FILING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 24.02.2011, IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS .11,453/-. THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED AN APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DISM ISSED THE APPEAL. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE T RIBUNAL. 4. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIR MATION OF THE SAME BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ITA NO. 1651/AHD/2011 DR. CHANDRAHAS A. DESAI VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 3 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT OWING TO BONA FIDE MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE COMPUTED INTEREST INCOME WITH OUT VERIFYING FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE SAID COMPUTATION OF INTEREST INCOME, THE SAME WAS O FFERED FOR TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKE BEING BONA FIDE AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S CONCEALED ANY MATERIALS/PARTICULARS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER; T HEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT O F HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. L TD. VS. CIT, REPORTED IN (2012) 348 ITR 0306. ON THE CONTRAR Y, LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS O BSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED LES S INTEREST INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.20,000/- ON THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA TAXABLE BOND AND ALSO IN THE INTEREST EARNED FROM THE ALLAHABAD BANK AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS L ESS INTEREST INCOME OF RS.13,686/- WAS OFFERED FOR TAX. LAW IS WELL SE TTLED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE CASE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE T O DEMONSTRATE THE ITA NO. 1651/AHD/2011 DR. CHANDRAHAS A. DESAI VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 4 BONA FIDE CAUSE FOR THE MISTAKE OF COMPUTATION ON HIS PART. I N THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED INTEREST INCOME F OR TAX; HOWEVER, WHILE COMPUTING SUCH INCOME THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF INCOME EARNED AND INCOME OFFERED FOR TAX OWING TO MISTAKE IN COMP UTATION. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO MISTAKE, INTEREST EA RNED WAS COMPUTED WITHOUT VERIFYING FROM THE BANK STATEMENT. THEREFO RE, THERE WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE. THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NO.5 OF HIS O RDER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER:- 5. ON 5.5.2011, THE LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN FOUR PAGES. I AM NOT CONVINCED WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO MERIT AND NOT FORCE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION . AFTER A CAREFUL STUDY OF PENALTY ORDER, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITT EN SUBMISSIONS, I AGREE WITH THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER, HENCE, THIS PENALTY ORDER IS APPROVED AS IT IS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS A NON-SPEAK ING ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THIS APPROACH OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICEWATERHOUSE C OOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCO ME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARSASSESSEES APPEAL ALLOWED ITA NO. 1651/AHD/2011 DR. CHANDRAHAS A. DESAI VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 5 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE APEX COURT, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE LETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH MARCH, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/03/2016 *BIJU T. '#$%&'&($ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD
Mehul