Anil Kalra, Mohali V. ITO, W-6(2), Mohali

ITA 252/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6058 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA SR DR
• Keywords: Salary income; Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c); 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH !, ' # , $ % & ' ( , )* # BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 252/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI ANIL KALRA, HOUSE NO. 203, PHASE-VII, MOHALI. VS THE IT O , WARD 6(2), MOHALI. ./ PAN NO: ABJPK3488J / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 28.11.2018 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2019 )+/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28/12/2017 OF CIT(A)-II CHANDIGARH PERT AINING TO 201314 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE RECORD SUBM ITTED THAT THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE CONSIDERED TO BE ARGUMENTATIVE , ACCORDINGLY, REVISED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN FILED. IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THEY MAY BE SUBS TITUTED FOR THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS. CONSIDERING THE REVISED GROUND, THE SR.DR STATED TH AT THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE REVISED GROUNDS AS NOTHING NEW IS STATED THEREIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS RAISED ARE SUBSTI TUTED BY THE REVISED GROUNDS. THESE WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED ON FACT S AND IN LAW IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1 961 IN THE PRESENT AT RS.12,05,560/-. 2. THAT THE HON'BLE CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NO MALAFIDE INTENTION AS HE DID NOT DISPUTE THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND DEPOSITED THE TAX CALCULATED BY THE AO. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED IN FULL AND THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) LEVIED BY THE LD. ASSESSING AUTHORITY MAY BE DELETED. ITA 252/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD O R AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER RELYING UPON THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF WHICH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSED. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY WERE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DISALLOWANCE OF HOUSE RENT ALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 10 (13 A) AND LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL LEADING TO THE FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVING INCOME FROM SALARY WHICH HAD TO BE INCLUD ED IN HIS RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN TAKING THE HELP OF ANY PROFESSIONAL AS NORMALL Y IT WAS ONLY SALARY INCOME. THUS, IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO FOLLOWING HIS PAST PR ACTICE, HE SELF FILED HIS RETURNS. INVITING ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 2 AND 3 WHICH IS T HE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED IN HIS OWN HAND WRITING THE SPECIFIC DATES ON WHICH THE HOUSE WHICH BELONGED TO HIS PARENTS WHICH ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR DEMISE DEVOLVED UPON HIM AND HIS S IBLINGS AND THEREAFTER WAS ULTIMATELY SOLD ON 08/10/2012. THE CALCULATION OF LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN THEREON WAS REFLECTED IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLOT NO. 2859 ON 27/04/2004 FOR A SPECIFIC PRICE BY MAKING P AYMENTS BY INSTALMENTS WHICH WAS SOLD ON 25/01/2013 ON WHICH ALSO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS CALCULATED IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE IN THE VERY SAME SHEET, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAS CORRE CTLY AND TRULY REFLECTED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NO. 203 ON 27/12/2012 AND THE LONG-TERM GAIN ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE STOOD INVESTED IN THE SAID HOUSE. BASED O N THESE CALCULATIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED AND ADDED TO HIS INCOME THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN OF RS. 331506/-. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ALL THE NECE SSARY DETAILS IN REGARD TO HOW THE PROPERTY DEVOLVED AND ON WHICH DATE IT WAS SOLD AND ON WHICH DATE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN INSTALMENTS AND WHAT PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED, ARE DET AILS WHICH THE AO TOOK FROM THE COMPUTATION OF ASSESSEE'S TAXABLE INCOME GIVEN BY T HE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ALONGWITH HIS RETURN. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF HOUS E RENT ALLOWANCE WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING AS RENT FOR THE PORTIO N OF THE HOUSE WHICH BELONGED TO THE CO- OWNER. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE HOUSE IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE WAS STAYING, DID NOT TOTALLY BELONG TO HIM AND THERE WAS A CO-OWNER. TH E SAID FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 4 TO 10 WHICH I S COPY OF THE FORM NO. 16 GIVEN BY HIS EMPLOYER AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RENT AGREEMENT ETC . AND OTHER NECESSARY DETAILS WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN SEEN BY THE EMPLOYER BEFORE ISSUING OF FORM NO. 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT IS NOT A FALSE CLAIM. THE ME RE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT CONTESTED FURTHER BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAKE OF AVOIDING LITIGATION IT WAS SUBMITTED, DOES NOT DISTRACT FROM THE BASIC FACT THAT THE PREMISES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING WAS NOT HIS SOLE OWNERSHIP. THE ITA 252/CHD/2018 A.Y.2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 3 ASSESSEE WAS A CO-OWNER THEREIN. SIMILARLY, QUA THE SECOND ADDITION, THE CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F/54 WAS VARIED BY THE AO BY ITSELF DOES NOT DISTRACT FROM THE BASIC FACT THAT ALL NECESSARY FACTS AND FIGURES WER E DISCLOSED. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE CHOSE FOR PEACE OF MIND NOT TO LITIGATE FURTHER ALSO DOES NOT BY ITSELF IN THE FACE OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD DETRACT FROM THE CLAIM THAT THERE WAS A BONA FIDE DISCLOSURE OF ALL CORRECT AND TRUE FACTS. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT A HABITUAL DEFAULTER AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT SUCH A SITUATION HAS ARISEN. ACCORDINGLY , IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 332 ITR 158 (S.C), IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT LEVY OF PENALTY WAS NOT ATTRACTED. 5. THE LD. SR.DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF, WE FIND THAT QUA THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ADMITTEDLY ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS AND DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE TO THE A O. THIS POSITION THAT ALL NECESSARY FACTS FOR QUANTIFYING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WERE FUL LY MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE ALSO. IT IS A CASE WHERE T HE CLAIM MADE HAS BEEN VARIED. THE INFORMATION QUA THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CORRECTLY AND FU LLY DISCLOSED. THUS, CONSIDERING THE FACT, WE FIND THAT QUA THE SAID ADDITION, IT IS NOT A CAS E OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. INFACT THE PRESENT CASE IS FULLY COVERED BY THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PE TROPRODUCTS (SURPA). BEING SATISFIED BY THE EXPLANATION OFFERED, THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. 7. ON THE OTHER ADDITION NOT CONTESTED, WE FIND THA T THE FACT THAT FLAT NO. B-401, RISHI APARTMENT, SECTOR 70, MOHALI IS CO-OWNED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND HE IS NOT THE SOLE OWNER IS ALSO A POSITION OF FACT WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY TH E REVENUE. ALL THESE FACTS STAND DISCLOSED. ACCORDINGLY, CONSIDERING FORM NO. 16 FILED BY THE E MPLOYER, WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS THIS ADDITION IS ALSO CONCERNED, IT IS NOT A FIT MATTER FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THESE DETAILED REASONS G IVEN HEREINABOVE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS QUASHED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.01. 2019. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & ' ( ) ( ! ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA S INGH) )* #/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #/ JUDICIAL MEMBER % $ (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR