Sh. Sudhir Chola HUF., Agra V. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Agra

ITA 195/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 19520314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KK MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURJEET SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 195/AGRA/ 2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR2007-08 SUDHIR CHOLA (HUF) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 15A, BALLABH NAGAR, WARD 1(1), AGRA OPPOSITE BAIKUNTHI DEVI DEGREE COLLEGE, BALUGANJ, AGRA-208006 (U.P.) (PAN AACHS 0732 D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SURJEET SINGH, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. MI SHRA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2013 ORDER PER PRAMOD KUMAR,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICA TE IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE IMPUGNED PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.7,85,378/- IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED I S 2007-08 AND THE IMPUGNED CIT(A)S ORDER WAS PASSED ON 21.01.2013. ITA NO.195/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2007-08 2 2. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SET OUT IN A NARROW COMPA SS OF MATERIAL FACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES IN RESPECT OF 33 CREDITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.1,69,87,9 31/- AND FOUND THAT 5 CREDITORS AGGREGATING TO RS.7,85,378/-, ARE UNVERIFIABLE INAS MUCH AS EITHER THERE IS NO CONFIRMATIONS FROM THEM OR THERE ARE NO CURRENT DEA LING WITH THEM. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7,85,378/-BUT THE MATTER DID NOT REST THERE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IMPO SED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE AS SESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS ALSO THE A PPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 4 WE FIND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SURREND ERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,85,378/- IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PRIMA FACIE REASONABLE, EVEN IF NOT SUFFICIENT, DET AILS OF GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE SU FFICIENT TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF CREDITORS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THAT FACT BY ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE IT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AS WELL. AF TER ALL, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT, AND CAN NEVER BE, AN AUTOMATIC CONSEQUENCE OF QUANT UM ADDITION BEING MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND ASSESSEES EXPL ANATION IS REASONABLE AND THE ITA NO.195/AGRA/2013 A.Y.2007-08 3 DETAILS OF CREDITORS, AS ALSO HOW THE CREDITS CAME INTO EXISTENCE, ARE ON RECORD. ON THESE FACTS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE IMPOSITION O F PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) WAS NOT WARRANTED. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENAL TY THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (PRAMOD KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOU NTANT MEMBER AMIT/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED CIT CONCERNED, D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY