Prof. Asha Kaul, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-14, Ahmedabad

ITA 3092/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8699 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SUTHRIA
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA; G M THAKAR
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 3 092 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO. 3 092 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 1 0 - 11 PROF. ASHA KAUL , ....... ...........APPELLANT HOUSE NO.434, IIM CAMPUS, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD 380 015. [PAN : A I H P K 6 722 A ] VS. D Y. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, CIRCLE 14, AHMEDABAD. ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: P.M. MEHTA & G.M. THAKAR FOR THE APPELLANT DEEPAK SUTHRIA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF C ONCLUDING THE HEARING : 21. 08 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 23 . 08 . 2017 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE A SSESS EE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 13 TH AUGUST 2015, PASSED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) , AHMEDA BAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : - 1 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.86,920/ - LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A VERY NARROW COMPASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. IT IS A CASE OF REOPENED ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE PROFESSIONAL FEES RE CEIVED FROM PHI LEARNING PVT. LTD. AND I.T.A. NO. 3 092 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 2 OF 3 SAGE PUBLICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,654/ - WAS ACCORDINGLY BOUGHT TO TAX IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AN INCOME OF RS.3,922/ - OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME A ND RS.1,11,720/ - ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO TAX. IT WAS IN RESPECT OF THESE QUANTUM ADDITIONS THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.86,920/ - WAS IMPOSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED, ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MAT T ER IN APPE A L BEFORE TH E LEARNED CIT ( A ) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS , PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITI ON. I FIND THAT SO FAR AS INCOME FROM PROFESSIONAL FEES OF RS.1,65,650/ - IS CONCERNED , THE SAME STANDS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AS CORRESPONDING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 QQB HAS BEEN H E LD TO BE ADMISSIBLE. TO THIS EXTE NT , THEREFORE , THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS NO LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE BASIS AT ALL. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE ON HER OWN OFFERED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH THE REASONS REC ORDED FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT DID NOT COVER THE SAME INCOME. CLEARLY THEREFORE THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING THIS INCOME TO TAX WAS VOLUNTARY AND MALAFIDE CANNOT BE ATTRIB UTED TO THE SAME. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE INCOME, IF THE SAME HAVING BEEN POINTED OUT OR DETECTED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES , IT WOULD NOT BE PROPER TO LEVY PENALTY ON SUCH INCOME. I , THEREFORE , DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE SA ID QUANTUM ADDITION OF RS.1,11,720/ - AS WELL . THAT L EAVES ME WITH UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.3,92 2 / - WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL W A S AN INADVERTENT ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPLETE DETAILS W ERE NOT AVAILABLE AT I.T.A. NO. 3 092 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR: 20 10 - 11 PAGE 3 OF 3 THE TIME OF FILIN G RETURN. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE, THE PLEA AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED . I , THEREFORE, DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY . 4 . IN THE RESULT, APP E AL IS ALLOWED . PR O NO UNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 23 RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 23 RD DAY OF AUGUST , 2017. COPIES TO : (1) THE APPEL LANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD