SHRI GURUSAMY RAMAMURTHY, PONDICHERRY V. ITO, WARD - 1, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 2348/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2662 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , , % BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2016-17 SHRI. GURUSAMY RAMAMURTHY, NO. 6, BRINDHAVANAM, PONDICHERRY 605 011. [PAN: AABHG 6513K] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 12(2), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( &'( /RESPONDENT ) ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE &'( ) / RESPONDENT BY : MS. R. ANITA, JCIT ) /DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2019 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.03.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-PUDUCHERRY, IN ITA NOS. 109&112/CIT(A)-PDY/2018-19 DATED 26.06.2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17, RESPECTIVELY. :-2-: ITA NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 2. M/S. GURUSAMY RAMAMURTHY, THE ASSESSEE, AN HUF F ILED ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17 ON 25.07.2016 AD MITTING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,66,650/-. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSM ENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES AGRICULTU RAL INCOME CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS FOR WANT OF DETAILS/EVID ENCES AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT, WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ACCEPTED BY ITS LETTER DATED 04.12.2018. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUED NOTICE U/S. 247 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE ASSESSEES REPLY, LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A GGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGAINST BOTH THE ORDERS BEFO RE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS. AGGRIEVED AGAINST TH OSE ORDERS, THE ABOVE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE QUANTUM APPEAL, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ADVERTING THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM SHRI. CHANDRAKESAVAN, BY WAY OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS DATE D 29.10.2015 (2NOS.) AND 05.01.2016, THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER EVIDENCING THE OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE AVAILABILITY OF CASURINA IN THOSE LANDS ETC . THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) :-3-: ITA NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 MAY BE DELETED. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR INVITING OU R ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 04.12.2018, PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CLEARLY STATED THAT I COULD NOT PRODUCE PURCHASER OF CASURINA AND I AM WILLING TO OFFER RS. 10 LAKHS TO THE INCOME RETURNED. THEREFO RE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUST AINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE AND DISTURBANCES. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSE SSEE VOLUNTARILY ADMITTED RS. 10 LAKHS INCOME OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURA L INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAI NED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON SOUND FOOTING AND HENCE THE CORRESPOND ING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 5. WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL ON THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LETTER DATED 04.12.2018, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF HIS ADMISSION PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED. FURTHER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFI CER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOWCAUSE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE :-4-: ITA NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 VOLUNTARILY OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON THE CONDIT ION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE INITIATED. FURTHER, THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PURC HASER OF CASURINA HAS GIVEN THE BANK DETAILS IN WHICH THE SALE PROCEE DS ARE DEPOSITED, ALL THE RECEIPTS ARE THROUGH CHEQUE ONLY AND THEREF ORE, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE DROPPED. IN SPITE OF IT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY AND THE LD . CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E SUSTAINED THE PENALTY. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, CERTIFICATES FROM VILLAGE ADM INISTRATIVE OFFICER AND BANK PARTICULARS AND EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTION, THE LEVY OF PENALTY CANT BE MADE WITHOUT RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE EXPLAN ATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PLEAD ED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE PURCHASERS OF CASURIN A AND NECESSARY :-5-: ITA NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 CERTIFICATES FROM THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE R TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF THE LAND AND HE HAS GROWN A CA SURINA PLANT ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANSACTIO NS WERE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND RECEIPTS A RE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY E XPLAINED THAT HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF THE IMPUGNED SUM FROM THE SALE OF CASURINA PLANT. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES THAT THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE PURCHASER, SHRI. CHANDRAKESAV AN AND LEVIED PENALTY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE PURCHASER AND COM PELLED THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR U/S. 131. THEREFORE, THE ASSESS EE AGREED TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL INCOME ON A CONDITION THAT PENALTY PROC EEDINGS SHOULD NOT BE INITIATED. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO HAS INITIATED P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND SOUGHT FOR EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED HIS TRANSACTIONS AND BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE IMPUGN ED TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE PRIMA FACIE, PLACED RELEVANT MATERIALS AND EXPLAINE D THE TRANSACTION. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING A SEPARATE PROCEEDING , IF AT ALL, THE AO INTENDS TO LEVY PENALTY, THEN THE AO IS BOUND TO RE CORD THE SATISFACTION THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FAL SE. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED SUCH FINDINGS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION :-6-: ITA NOS. 2348 & 2349/CHNY/2019 THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED IS UN-SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE IT IS DELETED. THE CORRESPONDING GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2348/CHNY/2019 IS DISMISSED AND ITS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2349/CHNY/20 19 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, 04 TH MARCH, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ! /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED: 04 TH MARCH, 2020 JPV )&3454 /COPY TO: 1. ( / APPELLANT 2. &'( /RESPONDENT 3. 6 ) ( /CIT(A) 4. 6 /CIT 5. 4& /DR 6. /GF