Mrs. Rajul Modi, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3064/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52552 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `F: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L.SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T. A. NO.3064/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 MRS. RAJUL MODI, ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X, II-L/48, LAJPAT NAGAR, VS. CIRCLE 32(1), NEW DELH I. NEW DELHI. PAN: AATPM6927F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, CA. RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SR. DR. O R D E R PER C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)S ORDE R DATED 4.04.2011 IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.34,750/- BEING IN COME FROM CHIT FUND. 2. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH E INCOME FROM CHIT AT RS.34,750/- TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY OBSERVING THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE AO ALSO INI TIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 2 U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THIS ITEM ALSO. THE AO THEN VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2007 LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING T O RS.44,468/- IN RESPECT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,34,750/-, WHICH INCLUDES THIS ITEM OF RS.34,750/- BEING INCOME FROM CHIT FUND. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO RECORD SATISFACTION OF CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE AO H AD TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE INCOME BY FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. 4. ON AN APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.34,750/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX. BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SUM OF RS.3 4,750/- AS EXEMPTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SODA SILICATE & CHEMICAL WORKS VS. CIT (19 89) 179 ITR 588 (P&H). HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VIE W THAT AFTER THE SAID DECISION, MANY RULINGS HAD COME IN FAVOUR OF THE RE VENUE BY THE TIME WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.05.2004. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY SUCH DECISION IN HIS ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS OF T HE INCOME OF RS.34,750/- IN 3 THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMED THE SAME TO BE EXEMPTED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE. THE ASSESSEES C LAIM HAS BEEN REJECTED FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO. IT IS THE CASE WH ERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS BUT HER CLAIM HAS BEEN REJE CTED IN THE EYES OF LAW, FOR WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT IS IMPOSABLE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRIMA FACIE BOGUS AND FALSE ONE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY IN RESPECT THE ADDITION OF RS.34,750/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM CHIT FUND. THUS, THE ISS UE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.L. SETHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH AUGUST, 2011. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR BY ORDER *MG DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT.