Shri Pramthesh R. Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-14, Ahmedabad

ITA 2712/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9928 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMAL I MEHTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2712/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI PRAMTHESH R. PATEL, C/O. KETAN H. SHAH, ADVOCATE, 903, SAPPHIRE COMPLEX, C.G. ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : ADGPP 4224 J VS ACIT, CIRCLE-14, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIMAL I. MEHTA, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/11/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/11/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XXI, A HMEDABAD DATED 08.10.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE SOLE GROUND RAISED IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.73,982/- U/S 271(1)(C) QUA THE FOLLOWING TWO ADDITIONS:- (I) NON INCLUSION OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.76,366/- (TD S WAS FILED ALONG WITH RETURN); (II) DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80-U AMOUNTING TO RS.75,0 00/-. 3. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. THE ISSUE BEING SMALL AND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD, REP ORTED IN [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), THE APPEAL IS DECIDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SMC-ITA NO. 2712/AHD/2013 SHRI PRAMTHESH R PATEL VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 2 4. BRIEF FACTS ARE THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.08.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,75,217/-, IN WHICH T HE CLAIM U/S 80-U WAS MADE UNDER CHAPTER VI-A. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE INTEREST INCOME; HOWEVER, RELEVANT INFORMATION WAS PLACED ON RECORD AS MENTIONED IN TDS CERTIFICATE. THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 80-U WAS MADE AND INTEREST INCOME WAS ALSO ADDED WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY CONTENDING THAT THE RELEVANT INFORMAT ION IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE ADDITIONS WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF I NCOME AND THE MISTAKE WAS BONA FIDE . LD. AO, HOWEVER, IMPOSED THE PENALTY. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL, WHERE THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT & ANOTHE R, [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) AND CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD, [2 010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IN QUESTI ON. 6. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS HEARD WHO SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I N MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THE PRIMARY INFORMATION IS FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME, THEN PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. AS THE FACTS EMERGE, IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED TDS CERTIFICATE WHICH CONTAINED PARTICULARS ABOUT THE INTEREST EARN ED AND TDS THEREON. THUS, THE MISTAKE WAS BETIDED BY AO BASED ON THE IN FORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. SIMILA RLY, THE RELEVANT SMC-ITA NO. 2712/AHD/2013 SHRI PRAMTHESH R PATEL VS. ACIT AY : 2008-09 3 PARTICULARS OF CLAIM U/S 80-U WERE ALSO FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND RELYING ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETR OPRODUCTS PVT LTD (SUPRA), IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 28/11/2016 *BIJU T., SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD