SMT. RAGILA V SHAH, Mumbai V. ITO WARD 25(3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1957/MUM/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2407 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAILASH GAIKWAD
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SM C - I , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1957/MUM/2019 : A.Y : 2013 - 14 SMT. RAGILA V. SHAH 301, MANGAL VILLA, TEJPAL ROAD, VILE PARLE (E), MUMBAI 400 057. PAN : AFZPS1923G (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 25(3)(3), MUMBAI. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. DINKLE HARIYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KAILASH GAIKWAD DATE OF HEARING : 15/10/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 /11/2020 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 37 , MUMBAI (IN SHORT THE CIT(A)) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,22,677/ - BY ORDER DATED 11.02.2019 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,02,113/ - WHICH WAS ASSESSED AT RS.11,99,940/ - BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN CLAIMED AND RS. 3,37,498/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED U/S 57. THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS FINALLY LEVIED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS 2 ITA NO. 1957/MUM/2019 SMT. RAGILA V. SHAH ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AND CHOSE NOT TO APPEAL. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED THE CORRECT INCOME FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT FILED REVISED RETURN FOR COMPUTATION ON HER OWN WITHDRAWING THE INACCURATE CLAIMS MADE BY HER. THE INCOME WOULD HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT RESULTING INTO LOSS OF REVENUE, IF THE CASE HAD NOT BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. UPON ASSES SEES APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE PENALTY. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORD. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, I FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING LOAN INTEREST HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE. THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST HAS BEEN DONE ON THE GROUND THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED TO NON/LOW INTEREST BEARING LOANS. 4. IN MY CONSIDE RED OPINION, THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN BE HELD TO BE EX FACIE BOGUS. I F THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DULY DISCLOSED IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME DOES NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH MAKES THE ASSESSEE LIABLE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS PROPOSITION IS DULY SUPPORTED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R ELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . , 322 ITR 158 (SC) . 5. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENT, I SET - ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 3 ITA NO. 1957/MUM/2019 SMT. RAGILA V. SHAH 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED UNDER RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES ON 2 6 T H NOVEMBER, 2020. SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 2 6 T H NOVEMBER, 20 20 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, SM C - I BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI