Sushilaben P. Patel, Vadodara V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Intl. Taxn.), Vadodara

ITA 2210/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8491 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR VARMA
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2210/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI SUSHILABEN P PATEL 10, VRAJVIHAR SOCIETY, NR. PANCHWATI SOCIETY, MANJALPUR, BARODA 390011 APPELLANT VS. DCIT (INTL. TAXATION), VADODARA RESPOND ENT PAN: BHTPP8789G / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI PARIN SHAH, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI SUMIT KUMAR VARMA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 04.04.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.04.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES FROM THE CIT(A)- 13, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 03.06.2016, IN CASE NO. CIT(A)-13/AHD/59/2015-16, AFFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENAL TY OF RS.1,97,976/-, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE IN A VERY NARROW COMPASS. THIS ASSESSEE IS AN NRI LIVING IN BRITAIN. SHE DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE FIL ED HER RETURN AT THE FIRST INSTANCE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEP OSITS OF RS.16.41LACS IN HER ITA NO. 2210/AHD/16 [ SHRI SUSHILABEN P. PATEL VS. DCIT(INTL. TAXATION)] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE SAME TRIGGERED IN AIR IN FORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SECTION 148 NOTICE DATED 16.01.2013. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE THERETO ON 23.01.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS.1,59,700/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO BE HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SHE FURTHER PLACED ON RECORD TOBACCO CROP SALE VOUCHERS OF RS.5LACS ALONGWITH VILLAGE TALATI CERTIFICATE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5LACS TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY CHEQUE TO ONE SHRI MITESH R. PATEL FOR PURCHASING HIS PLOT RETURNED SUBSEQUENTLY. SHRI PA TELS CONFIRMATION ALSO CONFIRMED PART OF ASSESSEES PLEADINGS SUBMITTED DURING THE C OURSE OF SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED IN VIEW OF ALL THESE FACTS THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12.5LACS ONLY WHEREIN THE EVIDENCE WAS MERELY TO THE TUNE OF RS.5LACS. HE THEREFORE FRAMED RE-ASSESSMENT IN QUE STION ON 20.02.2015 DURING CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNT OF RS.6,41,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED AND ACCEPTED RS.10LACS ONLY AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HEREINABOVE TO BE PROVED BY WAY OF COGENT MATERIAL. HE FURTHER INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALLEGING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AS WELL AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ASS ESSEES PART. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL. QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ATTAINE D FINALITY. 3. WE NOW ADVERT TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDING S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED HIS ORDER ON 28.08.2015 CONCLUDING THEREIN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HER PROVING SOURCE OF HE R CASH DEPOSITS ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.6.41LACS. HE THEREFORE HELD HER TO HAVE CONCEALED TAXABLE INCOME BY WAY OF FURNISHING ITS INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO LEVY THE PENALTY IN QUESTION OF RS.1,97,976/- AS UPHELD IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. WE REPEAT THAT THE INITIAL QUANTUM ISSUE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WAS CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.16.41LACS AS ADDED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.6.41LACS ONLY. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNS SUFFICIENT AGRICULTURAL LAND WHO COUL D ALSO PROVE PURCHASE MONEY OF RS.5LACS TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. TOTAL EXPLANATION IN THESE TWO HEADS IS OF RS.7.5LACS + R S.5LACS TOTALING TO RS.12.5LACS. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON TO CONFIRM THE CORRESPON DING PENALTY QUA THIS ENHANCED ITA NO. 2210/AHD/16 [ SHRI SUSHILABEN P. PATEL VS. DCIT(INTL. TAXATION)] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - AMOUNT OF RS.2.5 LACS. COMING TO THE REMAINING ADD ITION SUM OF RS.3,91,000/- OUT OF RS.6.41LACS (SUPRA), IT TRANSPIRES THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT HER CARETAKERS IN INDIA COULD NOT MATCH HER DEPOSITS VI S--VIS THE SALE PRODUCE. HER AGGREGATE LAND OWNERSHIP IS OTHERWISE NOT IN ISSUE. THIS LEADS TO A SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT ASSESSEES REMAINING CASH DEPOSITS PRIMA FACIE REPRESENTED HER AGRICULTURAL INCOME ONLY ALTHOUGH NOT SUPPORTED BY THE SUFFICIEN T EVIDENCE. HONBLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK JUDGMENT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158(SC) HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE LAW THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY AR E SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE IN COURSE OF FORMER DOES NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT LATTER PENAL PROVISION. WE TAKE INTO ACCOU NT ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCESSFULLY DISC HARGED HER ONUS TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF THE IMPUGNED PENAL PROCEEDINGS. WE THERE FORE DELETE THE PENALTY IN QUESTION OF RS.1,97,976/- UNDER CHALLENGE. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( N. K. BILLAIYA ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19/04/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )* + ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 + 23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0