Income Tax Officer- 3(4), Kanpur V. Smt. Swati Makhija, Kanpur

ITA 231/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9085 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.231/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), KANPUR. VS. SMT. SWATI MAKHIJA, 108/49, GANDHI NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ADQPM4666H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.232/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), KANPUR. VS. SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MAKHIJA, 108/49, GANDHI NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:ADGPM7092R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.23 3 /LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 06 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), KANPUR. VS. S MT. SARITA MAKHIJA, 108/49, GANDHI NAGAR, KANPUR. PAN:A FVPM4681H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 AND ONLY ONE COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED REGARDING DELETION OF APPELLANT BY SHRI PUNEET KUMAR D. R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI P. K. KAPOOR, C.A. DATE OF HEARING 1 8 /02/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 /03/2015 2 PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C). THE SAID PENALTY DELETED BY CIT(A) WAS RS.4,00,433/ - IN THE CASE OF SMT. SWATI MAKHIJA, RS.5,94,194/ - IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR MAKHIJA AND RS.2,75,641/ - IN THE CASE OF SMT. SARITA MAKHIJA. ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDERS WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 94(7) WAS AMENDED BY FINANCE NO. (2) ACT, 2004 WITH EFFECT FROM 0 1/04/2005 AND BECAUSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IN SECTION 94(7), THE ADDITIONS IN THESE CASES WERE MADE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS VERY FIRST YEAR AFTER AMENDMENT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY HIM IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME IS PROPER AND HENCE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF JANUS INVESTMENT FOUND VS. DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) IN I.T.A. NO.6975/MUM/2010 DATED 04/07/2012. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE C OPY OF THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 9 TO 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON A TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI M. RAVINDER IN I.T.A. NO.1010/HYD/2010 DATED 31/08/2012. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THIS TRIBUNA L DECISION IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 13 TO 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M. RAVINDER (SUPRA), IT IS NOTED BY I.T.A.T. THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ALLOWED BECAUSE THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 48 ARE AMENDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2005 AND IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO , THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITS CLAIM AS PER THE UN AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 94(7) OF THE ACT. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE 3 ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M. RAVINDER (S UPRA). RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY CIT(A) IN ALL THE THREE CASES AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ALL THE SE THREE CASES. 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL TH RE E APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 3 /03/2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR