Shree Snehal Rajnikant Purohit, Ahmedabad V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 3073/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2380 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: S P BHATT
• Keywords: Revised return

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3073/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-2012 SHREE SNEHAL RAJNIKANT PUROHIT B/204, PARSHAVNATH METRO CITY NR.SAVITA GREEN PLOT VISAT-GANDHINAGAR HIGHWAY CHANDKHEDA AHMEDABAD 382 424. PAN : AMKPP 2623 E VS ITO, WARD - 14(3) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.P. BHATT, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI R.P. MAURYA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 23/12/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18/01/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD DATED 21.8.2015 PASSED FOR THE AS STT.YEAR 2011- 12. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,26,284/-. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT E LECTRONICALLY ON 28.7.2011. IN THIS RETURN HE DECLARED HIS TOTAL IN COME AT RS.5,03,283/-. ITA NO.3073/AHD/2015 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED HIS RETURN UNDER SECTION 1 39(5) OF THE ACT ON 10.10.2012 AND DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT RS.10,10,87 5/-. BETWEEN THE FILING OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS WELL AS REVISED RE TURN, THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 23.8.2012 . THE LD.AO HAS ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN AND DETERMINED THE TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.10,10,875/-. HE DID NOT MAKE ANY AD DITION. HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT WHEN THE AO TOOK THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2), ONLY THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED THE RETURN. OTHERWISE, HE WO ULD NOT HAVE REVISED THE RETURN. THUS, THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT A T THE END OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.1,26,284/-. 3. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.REPRESENTATIVES, W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE IS THAT HE RECEIVED SALARY CERTIFICATES IN FORM NO.16 FROM THE COMPANIES VIZ. ANGEL BROKING LTD. AND ITS SISTER CONCERN ANGEL CAPITAL & DEBTS MARKET LTD. THIS SISTER CONCERN CAME TO EXISTENCE DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, THEREFORE, TWO SEPARATE FORM NO.16 WERE ISSUED WHIC H WERE GIVEN TO THE TAX CONSULTANT. ON ACCOUNT OF SOME INADVERTENT MIS TAKE, HE FILED THE RETURN ELECTRONICALLY BY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ONE C ERTIFICATE, AND THIS WAS THE REASON, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN. THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED WELL WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. THERE IS NOTHING WITH THE AO TO HARBOR A BELIEF THAT THIS COULD NOT BE CO NSIDERED AS A VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE. U PTO AND UNTIL THE TIME LIMIT IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR REVIS ING THE RETURN, THEN ANY INFORMATION CAME TO HIS POSSESSION COULD LEAD HIM T O FILE THE REVISED RETURN, THAT STEP SHOULD NOT BE SUSPECTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE REVISED ITA NO.3073/AHD/2015 3 RETURN. THE COGNIZANCE OF HIS REVISED RETURN HAS B EEN TAKEN BY THE AO. HE DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF TH E REVISED RETURN. THERE IS NO ADDITION MADE TO THE DECLARED INCOME. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICATION TO VISIT THE ASSESSEE WIT H THE PENALTY MERELY ON SUSPICION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS. WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE IMP UGNED PENALTY. 6. IN THE RESULT OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 18 TH JANUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER