Chandrashekhar R Mohite, Vadodara V. ITO, Ward-4(1)(3), Vadodara

ITA 2253/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6319 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO. 2253/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) CHANDRASHEKHAR R. MOHITE C-19, ASHOK SOCIETY, B/H GHELANI PETROL PUMP, NIZAMPURA, VADODARA / VS. ITO WARD- 4(1)(3), 2 ND FLOOR, OLD GEB BUILDING, RACE COURSE CIRCLE, VADODARA ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AGA PM9 579 Q ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIN SHAH, AR / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. DR ! /DATE OF HEARING 23/09/2019 '# ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21/10/2019 $% /O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010-11, ARISE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 4, VADODARA DATED 19.06.2017, IN PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN S HORT THE ACT. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS. 95,700/- IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED RET URN OF INCOME ON 14.07.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 5,11,054/-. THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ITA NO. 2253/AHD/2017(CHANDRASHEKHAR R. MOHITE VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-11 2 ACT BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 26. 11.2014. AS PER THE REASON FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS NOTICED FROM TH E DETAILS OF TDS TRANSACTION FROM FORM NO. 26AS THAT ASSESSEE HAS RE CEIVED AMOUNT TOTALLING TO RS. 8,21,760/- DURING F.Y. 2009-10 AND IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010- 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS REPORTED GROSS TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,11,050/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,410/- FROM BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA (BCCI) AND THE SAME WAS NOT INCLUDED IN INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,410/- TO TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY U/S. 217(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDING THE AO H AS REPORTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER ATTENDED NOR RESPONDED TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDING. THE AO HA S STATED THAT IF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN REMAINED UNDISCLOSED. THE AO HAS ALSO STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION AS PER EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC. 271(1)(C) THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS NOT FURN ISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 95,700/-. 5. ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDING BEFORE U S THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME A S ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF THE INCOME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ITA NO. 2253/AHD/2017(CHANDRASHEKHAR R. MOHITE VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-11 3 OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. MADHURI SATIS H MISAL 86 TAXMANN.COM 147. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS VOLUNTARILY CO NTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME A S THE NON-CONCEALMENT INCOME WAS ONLY DELETED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON VERIFICATION OF FORM NO. 26AS. HE HAS ALSO CONT ENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES THE PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.06.20 10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 5,11,054/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO HAS REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 147 ON THE REASONING THAT ASSESSEE HAS UNDER REPORT ED HIS TOTAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION AFTER VERIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN THE FORM NO. 26AS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE AFORESAID EVID ENCES OF NOT DISCLOSING THE INCOME WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE FORM NO. 26AS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,410/- RE CEIVED FROM BCCI WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. SMT. MADHURI SATISH MISAL VIDE [2017] 86 TAXMANN.COM 147 (BOMBAY ). IN THIS REGARD, WE OBSERVE THAT FACT OF THE CASE REFERRED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE THE ISSUE WAS THAT ASSESSEE WAS A BENEFICIARY OF AMOUNT RECEIVED AS A CONSEQUENCES OF TRANSFER EXECUTED BY HER HUSBAND OF WHICH SHE HAD NOT KNOWLE DGE AND SHE OFFERED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREAS IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF RECEIVED THE INCOME FROM BCCI WHICH WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE FORM NO. 26AS AND THE SAME WAS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 2253/AHD/2017(CHANDRASHEKHAR R. MOHITE VS. ITO) A.Y. 2010-11 4 LOOKING TO THE FOREGOING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES W E CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ALL THE MA TERIAL FACTS RELATING TO THE UNREPORTED AMOUNT OF RS. 3,15,410/- RECEIVED FROM T HE BCCI HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SU BSTANCE IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 21/10/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. $ / ASSESSEE 3. &' ( / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( - / CIT (A) 5. )*+ ' , ! ' , ,-$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. +. / / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $% , 0 / , ! ' , ,-$&$ 1 1.DATE OF DICTATION ON 24.09.2019 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 24.10.2019 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 21.10.2019 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .10.2019 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR . P.S./P.S .10.2019 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 21.10.2019 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21/10/2019