ACIT, CHENNAI V. M/s. E.V.Perumalsamy & Padmavathy Educational Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 1829/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1122 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-03-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Keywords: Charitable institution
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1829/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV (2), 46, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD, CHENNAI. VS. M/S. E.A. PERUMALSAMY & PADMAVATHY EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PLOT NO. 1015, Z BLOCK, 12 TH STREET, 5 TH AVENUE, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI 40. [PAN:AAATE0302R] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY : SHRI S . DAS GUPTA , JC IT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE TAX CONSULTANT DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2013 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -I, CHENNAI DA TED 26.07.2012 IN ITA NO. 46/10-11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02; IN PROCEE DINGS UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT ]. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE REVENUE VEHEMENTL Y ARGUES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT. IT REITERATES THE PLEADINGS MADE IN THE I.T I.TI.T I.T.A. .A..A. .A. NO. NO. NO. NO.182 182182 1829 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 GROUNDS AND PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE APPEAL. 3. OPPOSING THIS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE CI T(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271E AMOUNTING TO ` .1,21,34,656/- BY HOLDING THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 269T OF THE ACT IS ONLY APPLICABLE W.E.F. 01.06.2002 AND NOT QUA THE TIME PERIOD PRECE DING TO THE SAID DATE. TO BUTTRESS THE SUBMISSIONS, THE AR HAS PLACED ON RECO RD CIRCULAR NO. 8/2002 AS WELL AS JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT REPORTED AS [2011] 16 TAXMANN.COM 403 (DELHI) CIT V. JET LIFE INDIA LTD. DATED 13.12.2011 AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE CI T(A). 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CHARITABLE TRUST. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEES CASE UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2008 COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME AS ` . NIL. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID LOANS/DEPOSITS IN CASH OF ` .1,21,34,656/- TO 35 PARTIES. THEREFORE, ON 15.12.2009 A NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 274 R.W.S. 271E OF THE ACT STOOD ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RELEV ANT PROVISION I.E. SECTION 269T OF THE ACT HAD BEEN AMENDED W.E.F. 0 1.06.2002 AND THEREFORE, IT DID NOT APPLY TO THE RELEVANT ACCOUNT ING PERIOD I.E. 01.04.2001 TO I.T I.TI.T I.T.A. .A..A. .A. NO. NO. NO. NO.182 182182 1829 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 31.03.2002. HOWEVER, IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 22. 06.2010, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEGATED ASSESSEES PLEA AND IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271E OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 269T WOULD ALSO APPLY FOR PERIOD BEFORE 01.06.2002 AS WELL IN CASE OF REPAYMENT OF LOANS ETC. MADE OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. ACCOR DINGLY, HE IMPOSED PENALTY AT MINIMUM RATE I.E. ` .1,21,34,656/- ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. WE F IND THAT THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE HAS HELD THAT IN CIRCULA R NO. 8/2002 DATED 27.08.2002 REPORTED IN [2002] 258 ITR (ST.) 13, IT STOOD CLARIFIED THAT THE AMENDMENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 01.06.2002 AND NOT IN THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PRECEDING PERIOD. IN THIS MANNER, THE PENALTY STANDS DELETED. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE PENA LTY ORDER, CIT(A)S ORDER AS WELL AS MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BY THE A SSESSEE. THE PRECISE ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT TH E AMENDING PROVISION INTRODUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE IN SECTION 269T W.E.F . 01.06.2002 WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCUR WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RE VENUE. AS RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A), ONCE THE CIRCULAR (SUPRA) ITSELF CLARIF IES THAT THE AMENDMENT IN SECTION 269T WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 01.06.2002, WE F AIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO I.T I.TI.T I.T.A. .A..A. .A. NO. NO. NO. NO.182 182182 1829 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 HOW THE SAME WOULD BE ATTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2001-02. MOREOVER, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT (SU PRA) HAS ALSO DECIDED THIS VERY ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE REASONING ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). 9. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON MONDAY, THE 18 TH OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 18.03.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.