M/s Bhasin Associates, V. DCIT,

ITA 265/RAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0435 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A RAKSHIT
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI CIRCUIT BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 265/RAN/2014 (ASST. YEAR : 2001-02) M/S. BHASIN ASSOCIATES, WESTERN AVENUE, NAYA MORE, BOKARO STEEL CITY. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, BOKARO. PAN NO. AACFB 1031 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K. PODDAR WITH SHRI M.K. CHOUDHARY ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A. RAKSHIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 29/10/2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/10/2015. O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) JAMSHEDPUR, DA TED 19/06/2014. 2. THE SOLE ISSUED INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 5 LAC IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 6,96,289/-. 3 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT IN CLUDE RS. 6,96,289/- 2 ITA NO. 265/RAN/2014 BEING THE CONTRACT AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SAIL/BSP WH O FILED THE TDS CERTIFICATE OF RS. 15,736/- TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE BILL OF THE ASSESSEE FROM WHICH THE TDS HAD BEEN RECOVERED WAS FINALIZED AND THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAI NING ITS ACCOUNT AS PER MERCANTILE SYSTEM AND THEREFORE THE SAID PAYMEN T AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE ALSO RELATES TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000 -01 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAID CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 6,96,289/- TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 5 LAC FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CO NFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A N ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEAL OF REVENUE PASSED IN ITA NO. 117/RAN/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, ORDER DATED 20/05/2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS, IN THE SAID ORDER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED TO MAKE TH E SAID ADDITION OF RS.6,96,289/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AS THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 31/0 3/2001 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TDS OF RS. 15,736/- DEDUC TED BY THE PAYER IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE TRIBU NAL FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE SAID RECEIP T IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN TAXED , DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WILL ALSO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO DELETE THE SAID A DDITION OF RS.6,96,289/- AS ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03 AND WILL PASS THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT WAS THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWE EN THE ASSESSEE AND 3 ITA NO. 265/RAN/2014 THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS .6,96,289/- WAS TAXABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 OR 2002-03 T HERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXIGIBLE FO R PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8 . WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,96,289/- AS ITS INCOME IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2002-03 WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSE SSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TAXED THE SAME IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELE TE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,96,289/- ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THUS, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 5 LAC LEVI ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE H EARING ON THURSDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2015 AT RANCHI. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH OCTOBER, 2015. 4 ITA NO. 265/RAN/2014 VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., RANCHI 5 ITA NO. 265/RAN/2014 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 29/10/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 30/10/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 30/10/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 30/10/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 30/10/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29/10/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 30/10/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER