Smt. Nani Bai Goswami, Bhilwara V. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

ITA 337/JODH/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6125 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI A K DAS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH (SMC), JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 337/JODH/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 SMT. NANI BAI GOSWAMI, WARD NO. 21, SEWA SADAN WALI ROAD, BEHIND BHADADA BAGH, BHILWARA VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, BHILWARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: BBGPG0156B ASSESSEE BY SHRI HEMANT CHHAJED (CA) REVENUE BY SHRI SHRI A. K. DAS (JCIT) DR DATE OF HEARING 17/07/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/07/2018 O R D E R PER: R.C. SHARMA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AJMER DATED 17/04/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 201 3-14 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT, FO R SHORT]. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL ARE REPROD UCED AS UNDER: 1. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS. 61,000 MADE IN THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 27.06.2017 BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED BY CIT(APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2018 FOR FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARE BAD IN LAW AND ON 2 ITA 337/JODH/2018 SMT. NANI BAI GOSWAMI, BHILWALA VS. ITO FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VAR IOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 2. THE COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE A W IDOW 78 YEARS OLD AND HAVING NO SON, IS IGNORANT OF HER INCOME FROM FDR, TDS DEDUCTED BY BANKERS AND FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN. THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED FOR SUCH LADY TO FACE CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME AND INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SOON SHE RECEIVED A NOTICE F ROM INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT SHE COMPLIED WITH ALL THE FORMALITIES IN CONSULTATION WITH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND FILED HER FIRST RETURN OF INCOME. SOME OF TAX PAYMENT WERE ADJUSTED THRU TDS AND REST WERE PAID B Y SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX. THEREFORE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITH INTENTION TO MAKE DEFAULT DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE. FURTHER FURNISHING INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ALSO DOES NOT ARISES BECAUSE INTEREST ON FDR IS CALCULATED MANUALLY ON EACH FDR WHICH MIGHT DIFFER WITH BANKER S. THEREFORE INTEREST ON FDR WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH INTERES T CERTIFICATE FROM BANKER AND BASED ONLY ON MANUAL CALCULATION OF EACH FDR WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO A DD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE TH E DATE OF HEARING. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WIDOW AND AN ILLITERATE LADY AND RUNNING ABOVE 80 YEARS AGE. THE INTEREST O N FDR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 AT RS. 3,24,1 66/- WAS EMANATED FROM THE ROUGHLY ESTIMATION OF TOTAL FDRS. SUBSEQUENTLY AFTER FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND ON MANUAL CALCULATIO N BY THE ASSESSEE THE INTEREST AMOUNT WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 3,7 5,185/-. THUS THE INTEREST DIFFERENCE OF RS. 51,019/- BETWEE N RETURN OF 3 ITA 337/JODH/2018 SMT. NANI BAI GOSWAMI, BHILWALA VS. ITO INCOME AND THE MANUAL CALCULATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/S 143(2) WAS ALLEGED TO BE A CONCEALME NT OF INCOME BY THE LEARNED A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. FROM THE RECORD, I FOUND THAT THE RATE OF INTERE ST WHICH WAS APPLIED MANUALLY WAS BASED ON THE INITIAL CONTA CTED RATE WHICH HAPPENS TO BE VARIED AT THE TIME OF RENEWAL. THEREFORE, CALCULATION OF INTEREST ON FDR COULD NOT BE WORKED ON SUBSTANCE UNLESS BANKER GIVE CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST CREDITED IN THE DEPOSITORS ACCOUNTS YEAR WISE. IN THE INSTANCE CAS E THE BANKER VIZ. BHILWARA URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. BHILWARA ISSUED THE INTEREST CERTIFICATE OF RS. 9,70,483/- CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEE ACCOUNT IN A SPAN OF 5 YEARS BUT DID NOT GIVE THE A CTUAL INTEREST YEAR WISE. FURTHER THE BANKERS DID NOT DEDUCT ANY T DS DUE TO RECEIVING 15H IN ANTICIPATION THAT THE TAXABLE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMITS. THUS THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 51,019/- IN INTEREST INC OME IN ABSENCE OF THE BANKERS CERTIFICATE AND BASED ON TH E ESTIMATION CALCULATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E. 4 ITA 337/JODH/2018 SMT. NANI BAI GOSWAMI, BHILWALA VS. ITO 4. FROM THE RECORD, I FOUND THAT BEING OLD LADY WA S EARNING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS WITH BHILWARA URBAN CO-OPERATI VE BANK LTD. ON RECEIVING THE CORRECT CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANK, THE ASSESSEE DULY OFFERED THE INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE CERTIFI CATE GIVEN BY THE BANK AND ALSO PAID TAX THEREON. UNDER THESE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR LEVY O F PENALTY. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT ASSESSEE BEING VE RY OLD LADY, ALSO DID NOT CLAIM TDS ON THE INTEREST SO DEDUCTED BY THE BANK. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT TO DELETE THE PENALTY SO IMP OSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/07/2018. SD/- [R.C. SHARMA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 18/07/2018 *GANESH KR. COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 337/JODH/2018) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR JODHPUR BENCH