ITO, Theni V. R.Alagesan, Theni

ITA 324/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 32421714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.324/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I, THENI. V. SHRI A. ALAGESAN, NO.13-4-16B, VOC STREET, PALANICHETTIAPATTY, THENI 625 531. PAN : AEAPA 2480 G (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 06.05.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.05.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, MADURAI , DATED 25.11.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, CONFIRMING 2 I.T.A. NO.324/MDS/15 THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF SERV ICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE TO TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED HIMSELF IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE PAST TEN YEARS. THE ASSESSE ES WIFE SMT. S. MANIMOZHI IS WORKING AS TEACHER IN A GOVERNMENT AID ED MANAGEMENT SCHOOL. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THE A SSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A SUM OF ` 58,03,956/- TOWARDS HIS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DECLARED AGRICULTURAL IN COME OF ` 1,70,100/-. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EES RETURNED INCOME OF ` 58,03,956/- WAS ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS INITIAT ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITT ED THAT BUT FOR THE 3 I.T.A. NO.324/MDS/15 SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE RETUR N OF INCOME DETERMINING THE INCOME OF ` 58,03,956/-. SINCE THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D .R., THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEV ER, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE PENALTY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARC H. BUT, AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME WHICH WAS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE TIME LIMIT TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT WAS AVAILABLE UPTO 31.03.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE , THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PRO VIDED UNDER THE ACT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT , EVEN THOUGH AFTER THE SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE LEVIED ONLY IF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. I N THIS CASE, THE 4 I.T.A. NO.324/MDS/15 RETURN WAS FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UND ER SECTION 139(4) OF THE ACT AND THE DECLARED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY FURTHER ADDITION. THEREFORE, I T CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ANY PART OF HIS INCOME OR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL I S OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 15 TH MAY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (. !' ) ( . . . ) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 15 TH MAY, 2015. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-I, MADURAI 4. 0 81 /CIT-II, MADURAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.