Manmohan Singh, Lucknow V. Inocme Tax Officer, Lucknow

ITA 183/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4827 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.183/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 INCOME TAX OFFICER, RANGE 1(2), LUCKNOW VS MANMOHAN SINGH, B-2458, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW PAN A JWPS 7136 E (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI V.B. BHARGWA, CA APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, DR RESPONDENT BY 05/01/2016 DATE OF HEARING 21/01/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 05.12.2014 FOR THE AY 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL B UT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING O F PENALTY OF RS.4,95,290/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS SUO MOTO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, PENALTY IMPOS ED BY THE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIN D THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO F URNISH THE DETAILS OF INCOME UNDER TWO HEADS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E AND DETAILS OF EARLIER YEAR LOSSES VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10 .12.2012. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THE DETAILS OF PENSION INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME AND VIDE REPLY D ATED 13.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REVISED COMPUTATION AND AGRE ED FOR TAXATION ON THE BASIS OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. AFTER MAKIN G THESE OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED INCOME OF ASSESSEE A T RS.21,16,080/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETU RN OF INCOME OF RS.1,01,590/- BUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALTHOUGH STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT AS PER THE JUDGMENT OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MADHUSHREE GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 317 ITR 107 (DEL.), IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN AFTER INS ERTION OF SECTION 271(1B) OF THE ACT AS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RE TROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 01.04.1989, THE POSITION OF LAW IS SIMILAR AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL HAVE TO ARRIVE AT PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION AND SUCH SATI SFACTION SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, NO SUCH SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DISCERNABL E FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271 (1) (C) AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT 3 VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE SAME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) (A.K. GARO DIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21/01/2016 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR