Smt. Monika Malhotra, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 20/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77119 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 20/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 SMT. MONIKA MALHOTRA VS. I.T.O. WARD 11(4) PROP. M/S MALHOTRA ENTERPRISES LUDHIANA MOCHPURA BAZAR LUDHIANA ACDPM 6801 C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A KHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 13.5.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 .5.2014 O R D E R PER T.R. SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED OF THE LD CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,64,830/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C). 2 THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AGA INST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROP ERLY. 3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT T HAT ALL THE PARTICULARS WERE DISCLOSED AND NOTHING WAS CONCEALE D. 3 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THREE ADDITIONS WERE MADE. FIRST ADDITION ANG TO RS. 14,28,878/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF C LAIM OF INTEREST U/S 24 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION WAS MADE B Y OBSERVING THAT OUT OF TOTAL BORROWINGS OF RS. 1.6 CRORES A SU M OF RS. 60 LAKHS WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER HUSBAND ON 1 .8.2008, RS. 25 LAKH AND RS. 0.86 LAKHS WAS DEPOSITED IN PUN JAB 2 NATIONAL BANK, RS. 4.29 LAKH WAS SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITA ASSETS AND RS. 29.50 LAKH WAS SPENT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES OF AVON MEGA RETAILS (P) LTD. THE NEXT ADDITION AMOUNT ING TO RS. 15,08,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITI BANK. THE LAST ADDITION OF RS. 1,,31,400/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNTS CREDITED IN T HE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ON ALL THESE THREE A MOUNTS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIAT ED. THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN QUANT UM APPEAL. 4 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRESSED GROUNDS REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 14,28,878/- AND R S. 1,31,400/-. AS FAR AS THIRD ADDITION OF RS. 15,08, 000/- IS CONCERNED, THIS ISSUE WAS SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL . THIS PLEA WAS REJECTED AND ULTIMATELY PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON A LL THE THREE ITEMS. 6 ON APPEAL, IT WAS STATED THAT DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE IN UTTER DISREGARD OF THE SUBMISSIONS TO PROVE AND EXP LAIN THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED ER RONEOUS OR INACCURATE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY COULD NOT LEVIED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESS EE WERE NOT ACCEPTED. SOME CASE LAWS WERE ALSO RELIED. HOWEVER , THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 7 BEFORE US. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS 3 CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS. HOWEVER, HE FAIRLY ADMI TTED THAT THIS CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS NOT ALLOWABLE THAT IS WH Y THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8 AS FAR AS CREDITS IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT IS CONCERNED, SAME WERE DEPOSITED OUT OF PAST SAVINGS FROM WITHDRAWALS MADE OUT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. HOWEVE R, HERE AGAIN HE ADMITTED THAT NO SUCH EXPLANATION WAS GIVE N BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A). 9 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREF ULLY. AS FAR AS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IS CONCERNED , ADMITTEDLY THIS CLAIM WAS NOT BONAFIDE BECAUSE BORROWED AMOUNT HAS BEEN USED FOR OTHER PURPOSE AS STATED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND THEREFORE WRONG CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE WHICH WAS N OT ALLOWABLE AT ALL. THEREFORE THIS WOULD CLEARLY AMO UNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS PARTICULARLY I N THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL THE GROUND IN R ESPECT OF THIS ADDITION WAS NOT PRESSED WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT IT WAS NOT A BONAFIDE CLAIM. SIMILARLY NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LD. CIT(A) IN R ESPECT OF CREDIT APPEARING IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND TO SIMPLY STATE BEFORE US THAT THIS CAN BE OUT OF PAST SAVINGS, IS NOT TENABLE. THEREFORE IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ITEMS THE ASSESSE E HAS CLEARLY CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HENCE P ENAL PROVISIONS ARE CLEARLY ATTRACTED. ACCORDINGLY WE C ONFIRM THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO ADDITIONS. 11 AS FAR AS THIRD ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPO SIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,08,000/- IS CONCERNED, THIS ISS UE HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY US IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO. 4 464/CHD/2012, THEREFORE WE DELETE THE PENALTY. HOWE VER, REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO INITIATE FRESH PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS IF PENALTY IS LEVIABLE AS FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.5.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29.5.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR