ITO 20(1)(3), MUMBAI V. JAYDEEP DECJI PALANI, MUMBAI

ITA 1998/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 79475 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: J
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA SINGH; SATENDRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, ,, , , ,, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL J BENCH, MU MBAI . . ! , ' #$% & & & & '&& &( , ) #$% #* #* #* #* BEFORE, SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JM # ./ I.T.A. NO. 1998 /MUM/2013 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( &+( &+( &+( &+( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) INCOME TAX OFFICER-20(1)(3), 607, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 / VS. SHRI JAYDEEP DEVJI PALANI, 207, OBEROI TRADE CENTRE, OBEROI COMPLEX, OPP. LINK RD. ANDHERI(WEST), MUMBAI-400061 %, ' # ./ PAN : AADPP5318H ( ,- / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./,- / RESPONDENT ) ,- 0 1 # / APPELLANT BY : DURGA DUTT ./,- 0 1 # / RESPONDENT BY : JITENDRA SINGH & SATENDRA PANDEY # & 0 2' / DATE OF HEARING : 28 /07/2014 34+ 0 2' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /07/2014 $5 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-31, MUMBAI DATED 07/01/2013 PERTAINING TO A. Y. 2007-08. 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.5,03,112/- LEVIED U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2009 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FIXED DEPOSI T IN JANKLYAN BANK AMOUNTING TO RS.50 LAKHS. THE AO FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS DECLARED NO INTEREST INCOME FROM THE SAID THE FIXED DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS 2 ITA NO.1998/MUM/2013 JAYDEEP DEVJI PALANI ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID INTEREST HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT INADVERTE NTLY THE SAME COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND OFFERED THE SAID INTEREST AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FURTHER NOTICED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST FROM M/S JOY INTERNATIONAL AT RS.1,1 9,226. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS REVISED AT RS.10,19,226/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO INTERESTS SHOWN IN THE REVISED COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME AND NOT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE PENAL PRO CEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT INTEREST ON FDR WAS SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE C OMPUTATION OF INCOME BUT WHEN POINTED OUT IT WAS IMMEDIATELY INCLUDED IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME. IN SO FAR AS INTEREST F ROM JOY INTERNATIONAL ITS CONCERN, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DUE TO TYPOGRAPH ICAL ERROR AMOUNT OF RS.10,19,226/- WAS SHOWN AS 1,19,226/- IN THE COMPU TATION OF INCOME AND IT WAS IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE EXPLANAT ION/SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED BY THE AO WHO WENT ON THE L EVY OF PENALTY OF RS.5,03,112/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS CLAIM. THE CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THE MISTAKE WAS INADVERTENT AND THERE WAS A TYPOGRAPHIC AL ERROR AND ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS REVENUE IS BEFORE US. THE LD . DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT W AS SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT BUT THE SAME WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME. IF 3 ITA NO.1998/MUM/2013 JAYDEEP DEVJI PALANI THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO HIDE THIS INCOME FROM THE RE VENUE IT WOULD NOT HAVE SHOWN THE SAME IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FILED WI TH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT APPEARS TO BE INADVERTENT MISTAKE AND W HEN CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, HE FILED REVISED COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, THE INTEREST OF JOY INTERNATIONAL WAS SHOWN AT RS.1 ,19,226 INSTEAD OF 1,01,19,226 LOOKING AT THESE FIGURES TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE CONFIRMED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/07/2014 $5 0 34+ ' 6$ 28/07/2014 , 4 0 7 SD/- (VIVEK VARMA) SD/- (N.K.BILLAIYA) ) #$% / JUDICIAL MEMBER ' #$% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 6$ /DATED : 28 TH JULY, 2014. F{X~{TA F{X~{TA F{X~{TA F{X~{TA P.S. P.S. P.S. P.S. $5 $5 $5 $5 0 00 0 .)28' .)28' .)28' .)28' 9'+2 9'+2 9'+2 9'+2 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT- , MUMBAI. 4. : / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. '&;7 .)2) , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7<( = / GUARD FILE. $5 # $5 # $5 # $5 # / BY ORDER, #/'2 .)2 //TRUE COPY// > >> > / #? #? #? #? (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI