Sudha Vasistha, Kaithal V. ITO, Kaithal

ITA 272/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2432 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PERMIL KUMA R GOEL
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 272/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SMT.SDHA VASISTHA, VS THE ITO, WARD-4, PROP. M/S RAJESH RICE MILLS, KAITHAL. DHAND, KAITHAL. PAN: ADQPV-202Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PERMIL KUMA R GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 25.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.6.2013 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) KARNAL DATED 27.12.2012 PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ). 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUND OF APPEAL: PENALTY IMPOSED IS BAD IN LAW, AS A.O. WAS NOT SU RE ENOUGH, NEITHER AT THE TIME OF INITIATING PENALTY NOR AT TIME OF IMPOS ING PENALTY WHETHER IT IS CASE OF CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT ASS ESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF RIC E. IN THE ASSESSMENT, AN ADDITION OF RS.3,1,755/- WAS INTERAL IA MADE U/S 43B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF VAT WHICH REMAINED PAYABLE AS ON 31.3.2006 AND THE SAME WAS NOT DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN. 2 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO INITIATED IN THIS RES PECT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, NOB ODY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, ASSESSI NG OFFICER LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.93,195/- U/S 2711)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARI OUS CASE LAWS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODU CTS 322 ITR 158 AND PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME- TAX CIVIL APPEAL NO. 624/2012) ARISING OUT OF SLP(C ) NO.10700 OF 2009, DECIDED ON 25.9.2012. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND ALSO S UBMITTED THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE AMOUNT OF VAT WHICH REMAINED UNPAID, WAS NOT ADDED TO THE INCOME. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE AND PEN ALTY IS NOT CALLED FOR. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS). 7. AFTER EXAMINING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND F ORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IF SOME ITEM OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF ACCOUNTANT OR COUNSEL, THEN IT MAY NOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. SAME VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, SALES TAX MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKE OF THE COUNSEL AND THE REFORE, IT IS NOT A 3 FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET A SIDE THE ORDER TO THE CIT(APPEALS) AND DELETE PENALTY. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH JUNE, 2013. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHD.