Sri Rajgopal Bhagrirath Tapadia., Belgaum V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 (3), Belgaum., Belgaum

ITA 302/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1351 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIDDAPP A JI R N
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 302 /PNJ/201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 ) SHRI RAJGOPAL BHAGIRATH TAPADIA, VITHALDEO GALLI, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI. VS. ITO , WARD - 1(3), BELGAUM PAN NO. AABHR 2598 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SIDDAPP A JI R.N. - D R DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 1 0/2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 / 1 0 /201 5 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) , BELAGAVI , DATED 21 /0 5 /201 5 . 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 27/07/2015 BY REGISTERED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT DUE ON 25/08/2015, WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 28/08/2015 AS EVIDENCE D BY THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD OF THE POST OFFICE , PLACED ON RECORD. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED. THE BENCH WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DISPOSED OF IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE . HENCE, APPEAL WAS HEARD EXPARTE QUA THE APPELLANT - ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 3 02/PNJ/201 5 3 . THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF 19,689/ - . 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN INTEREST INCOME RECEIVED FROM UNION BANK OF INDIA OF 9 0 ,719/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID INTEREST HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN. BY MISTAKE , THE SAME GOT OMITTED TO BE INCLUDED WHILE FILING THE RETURN . WHEN THE SAID NON - DISCLOSURE WAS NOTICED, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED IT FOR TAXATION WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INTEREST INCOME WAS DULY DECLARED AS INCOME IN ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND IT WAS ONLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IT RE MAINED TO BE SHOWN DUE TO OVERSIGHT WHILE FILING THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE SAID EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF 19,689/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. ON APPEAL THERE AGAINST, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . 6 . DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD NOT DISCLO SED INTEREST RECEIVED FROM UNION BANK OF INDIA OF 9 0 ,719/ - . THE EXPLANATION OF THE 3 ITA NO. 3 02/PNJ/201 5 ASSESSEE WAS THAT BY MISTAKE THE SAME GOT OMITTED TO BE INCLUDED WHILE FILING THE RETURN AND AS SOON AS IT WAS POINTED OUT, THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS ALSO STATED THAT IN ALL SUBSEQUENT YEARS , THE INTEREST INCOME WAS DULY DISCLOSED. 8 . IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT BY MISTAKE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , AS PLAUSIBLE ONE. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 400 HAS HELD THAT WHERE DUE TO BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADD PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME, ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C). IN THE I NSTANT CASE ALSO, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY EITHER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND THEREFORE, WAS LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA) , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF 19,689/ - AND ALLOW THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON MONDAY , THE 05 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 201 5 AT GOA . S D / - S D / - (GEORGE MATHAN) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED : 05 TH OCTOBER , 201 5 . 4 ITA NO. 3 02/PNJ/201 5 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., PANAJI 5 ITA NO. 3 02/PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 05 . 1 0.2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 05 . 1 0 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 05 / 1 0 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 05 / 1 0/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 05 / 1 0 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05 / 1 0/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 05 / 1 0 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER