ITO, Meerut V. Smt. Malti Devi Chikara, Meerut

ITA 231/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 23120114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO S SS S . .. . 229/DEL/2014, 230/DEL/2014, 231/DEL/2014 AND 232/DE L/2014 229/DEL/2014, 230/DEL/2014, 231/DEL/2014 AND 232/DE L/2014 229/DEL/2014, 230/DEL/2014, 231/DEL/2014 AND 232/DE L/2014 229/DEL/2014, 230/DEL/2014, 231/DEL/2014 AND 232/DE L/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR S SS S : : : : 2000 2000 2000 2000 - -- - 01, 2001 01, 2001 01, 2001 01, 2001 - -- - 02, 2003 02, 2003 02, 2003 02, 2003 - -- - 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 04 & 2004 - -- - 05 0505 05 INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, W WW WARD ARD ARD ARD- -- -1(4), 1(4), 1(4), 1(4), MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. VS. VS. VS. VS. SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, 381, NEW MOHANPURI, 381, NEW MOHANPURI, 381, NEW MOHANPURI, 381, NEW MOHANPURI, MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. MEERUT. PAN : AKVPD4947L. PAN : AKVPD4947L. PAN : AKVPD4947L. PAN : AKVPD4947L. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SR.DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. SAMPATH AND SHRI V. RAJA KUMAR, ADVOCATES. DATE OF HEARING : 04.06.2015 04.06.2015 04.06.2015 04.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.07.2015 03.07.2015 03.07.2015 03.07.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 2000-01, 2001-02, 2003-04 & 2004-05 ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 23 RD OCTOBER, 2013. SINCE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, T HESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THESE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED L OAN AMOUNTS FROM DIFFERENT PERSONS IN VIOLATION OF SECTIO N 269SS OF THE ACT AND, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269SS BEING CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS, THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. H E SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED LOANS FROM DIFFERENT ITA-229 TO 232/D/2014 2 RELATIVES, IS NO GROUND TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT PORTI ON OF THE PENALTY ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS IGNORANT OF THE TECHNICAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 26 9SS AND IS NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF VARIOUS LAWS AND, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING BONA FIDE , SHOULD BE CONDONED. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN MOTILAL PADAMPAT S UGAR MILLS CO.LTD. VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS [1979] 118 ITR 326. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER HUSBAND, HER FATHER, HER FATHER-IN-LAW AND HER SON, I .E., HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 269S S SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOANS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND WERE GENUINE AN D THE TECHNICAL MISTAKE, IF ANY, WAS BONA FIDE . THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER IN BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, WAS IGNORANT OF THE TECHNICAL PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 269SS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COCHIN TRIBUNAL IN MUTHOOT M. GEORGE BANKERS VS. ACIT [1993] 46 ITD 10 , OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SKYLINE SILK MI LLS VS. ACIT [2006] 101 TTJ 798 AND OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN C IT-I VS. SMT. M. YESODHA [2013] 351 ITR 265 (MADRAS). HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERU SED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). THE BASI C FACTS OF THE CASE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER INDULGED HERSELF IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND, THEREFORE, MAY BE IGNORANT OF THE TECHNICAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE IS THE WIFE OF A RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT. THE LOANS WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, I.E., HER HUSBAND, HER FATHER, HER ITA-229 TO 232/D/2014 3 FATHER-IN-LAW AND HER SON FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE C ONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING. THE EXPLANATION AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE BONA FIDE AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST ANY MALA FIDE INTENTION OR CONDUCT WITH A VIEW TO TAX EVASION. TH E CASE LAW CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT PENALTY COULD NOT BE L EVIED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO APPLY THEIR MIND AND JUDICIALLY EXAMINE THAT WHETHER IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE MADE LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. IN THIS C ASE, THE LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD AS GENUINE AND WERE RAISE D FROM HER IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE CONDUCT AND EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEM TO BE BONA FIDE . IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 27 1D OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED, AND THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS BEFORE ME ARE DISMISSED . 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD JULY, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -1(4), MEERUT. 1(4), MEERUT. 1(4), MEERUT. 1(4), MEERUT. 2. RESPONDENT : SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, SMT. MALTI DEVI CHIKARA, 381, NEW MOHANPURI, MEERUT. 381, NEW MOHANPURI, MEERUT. 381, NEW MOHANPURI, MEERUT. 381, NEW MOHANPURI, MEERUT. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR