Rajasekaran Subramanian, CHENNAI V. ITO Salary Ward I(3), CHENNAI

ITA 2370/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5922 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' .$%$&, ( ') BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2370/CHNY/2018 & +& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI RAJASEKARAN SUBRAMANIAN, F-3, FIRST FLOOR, VARSHA DAISY APARTMENT, VENKATASAMY STREET, SELAIYUR, CHENNAI - 600 073. PAN : AONPS 8219 J V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD 1(3), CHENNAI - 600 045. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : NONE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT 3 1 4( / DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2019 56+ 1 4( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.01.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNA I, DATED 12.06.2018, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER 2 I.T.A. NO.2370/CHNY/18 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH NOT ICE OF HEARING WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THEREF ORE, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED T O DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE WORKED AS TECHNICAL SPECIALIST WITH M/ S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. FROM 01.04.2010 TO 04.11.2010. I N FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A TOTAL SALARY OF 20,20,995/- FROM HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. MOREOVER, A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASS ESSEE SWITCHED OVER TO M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AS PROJECT MA NAGER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D A SUM OF 4,94,823/- FROM M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE COM PANIES HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AT THE TIME OF MAKING PAYMEN T. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY DISCLOSED ONLY THE INCOME R ECEIVED FROM M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2370/CHNY/18 SALARY RECEIVED FROM HCL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON A QUERY FROM BENCH, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THE TDS MADE BY M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE ASSE SSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE IS N OT AWARE OF PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM M/S HCL TECHNOLO GIES LTD., THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALARY FROM TWO COMPANIES, NAMELY , M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. AND M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY DISCLOSED ONL Y THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM M/S INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. THE AS SESSEE NOT ONLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. BUT ALSO FAILED TO CLAIM THE TDS MADE BY THE M /S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HAD THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TDS MAD E BY THE M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THEN WE MAY SAY THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEALED PART OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. THE VERY FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CL AIMED TDS 4 I.T.A. NO.2370/CHNY/18 MADE BY THE M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SHOWS THAT TH ERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT DISCLOSING THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SINC E THE TDS WAS MADE BY M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THE FACT OF SALA RY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S HCL TECHNOLOGIES LTD. IS VERY MUCH WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. H ENCE, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A RE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DELE TED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST JANUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !'.$%$&) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 21 ST JANUARY, 2019. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.2370/CHNY/18 1 /49: ;:+4 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. 3 <4 () /CIT(A)-10, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-7, CHENNAI 5. := /4 /DR 6. >& ? /GF.