K.Chandrasekaran , CHENNAI V. ITO Corporate Ward 6(2) , CHENNAI

ITA 1812/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6035 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M PALANICHAMY
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI . , ' , % & BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1812/MDS/2017 %' ' /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SHRI K.CHANDRASEKARAN, NO.25 & 26, STERLING AVENUE, SAKTHI NAGAR, PORUR, CHENNAI-600 034. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD-6(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, NO.121, M.G.ROAD, CHENNAI-600 034. [PAN: AAGPC 3161 N ] ( ( /APPELLANT) ( )*( /RESPONDENT) ( + / APPELLANT BY : NONE )* ( + /RESPONDENT BY : MR.M.PALANICHAMY, JCIT + /DATE OF HEARING : 12.10.2017 + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.10.2017 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.1812/MDS/2017 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-10, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO.9/2012-13/CIT(A)-10 DATED 12.05.2017 FOR THE AY 2009-10. 2. MR.M.PALANICHAMY, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1812/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.DR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BENEFIT OF SEC.80C IN RESPECT OF THE RE-PAY MENT OF THE HOUSING LOAN PRINCIPLE AS ALSO DEDUCTION U/S.24(B) OF THE A CT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES SON AND THE EMIS FOR THE LOAN RE-PAYMENT WERE DEBITED FROM THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. THE LOAN SANCTIONED FROM C HOLAMANDALAM DBS WAS TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEES SON, ASSESSEES WIFE AS CO- APPLICANTS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT DURING THE SU BSEQUENT YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEES SON BECAME MAJOR, THE SON HAS SHOWN THE SAID PROPERTY AS HIS HOUSE PROPERTY AND HAD ADMITTED RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED TH ROUGH LOAN FROM HDFC. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LOAN FROM CHOLA MANDALAM DBS WAS ALSO TAKEN NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OR P URCHASE OR EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE BUT WAS FOR BUSINESS EXPANSION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT CONSEQUENTLY THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S.80C AND THE CLAIM U/S.24(B) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUBMI SSION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA D SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND THE EMIS FOR THE LOAN RE-PAYMENT DEBITED FROM THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE, THUS, WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.24(B) AND 80C BY GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHICH LEAD TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE EXPLANATION O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONAFIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY LEVIED PENALTY. IT WAS A SUBMISSION ITA NO.1812/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE PE NALTY LEVIED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) WAS LIAB LE TO BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMIT TEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.80C IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND ALSO CLAIME D DEDUCTION U/S.24(B) OF THE ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE PENALTY ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AO SAYS THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE. NOWHERE IS IT BEING SAID THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS FA LSE OR IMPROBABLE. IN FACT, THE LOAN TAKEN FROM CHOLAMANDALAM DBS UNDER T HE HEAD BUSINESS EXPANSION OF RS.75.00 LAKHS HAS BEEN USED FOR CLOSI NG THE LOAN TAKEN FROM THE HDFC FOR PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE AND TO THE ASSES SEE, BUT THIS IS NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. THIS LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN O N 31.01.2008. THUS, THE LOAN TAKEN FROM CHOLAMANDALAM DBS HAS BEEN, IN FACT, USED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO CLEAR OFF HIS SONS LOAN WITH HD FC AND TO RE-PAY THE AMOUNT INVESTED BY THE FATHER, AS THE ASSESSEES SO N, IN WHOSE NAME THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN PURCHASED, HAD BECOME A MAJOR AND WAS FILING HIS INDIVIDUAL RETURN BY SHOWING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ANY EVENT, THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY, HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE F ALSE OR IMPROBABLE. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND CONSEQUENTLY, CANCELLED THE SAME. THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE AO AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) U/S.271(1) (C) STANDS DELETED. ITA NO.1812/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON OCTOBER 12, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P GEORGE ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' ) (GEORGE MATHAN) % /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2017. TLN + )%34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. )*( /RESPONDENT 5. 4 )%% /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ' /GF