Gurdeep Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 341/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68433 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, A.M AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM ITA NO. 341/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 GURDEEP SINGH VS. I.T.O H NO. 13 WARD III(2), LUDHIANA VPO KANECH SAHNEWAL LUDHIANA AZEPS 3987K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SARABJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 6.8.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23.8.2013 O R D E R PER T.R.SOOD, A.M THIS APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12. 1.2012 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA. 2 IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GR OUNDS BUT AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDINGLEVY OF PENALTY U/S 2 71A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,000/-. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED FOR NON MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUOTED THE OBSERVA TIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 3 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 2 ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS IT IS SEEN THAT YOU H AVE RECEIVED CONTRACT PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 52,34, 820/- FROM M/S BAJAJSONS LTD ON WHICH TDS OF RS. 1,18,785 /- HAS BEEN CLAIMED IN YOUR RETURN OF INCOME. NO CREDI9T OF TDS CLAIMED BY YOU IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 199(1) AS YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY SUCH RECEIPTS IN Y OUR RETURN OF INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION CALL ED U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM M/S BAJAJSONS LTD. IT IS NOT ICED THAT YOU HAVE EXECUTED CONTRACT OF CARRIAGE ON BEHALF OF M/S BAJAJSONS LTD. AGAINST WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN PAID RS. 52,34,820/-. NO INCOME FROM THIS CONTRACT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN YOUR RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ABOVE ASSESS MENT YEAR. ON FURTHER EXAMINATION OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM M/S BAJAJSONS LTD. ITS IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE EXECUTED T HE CARRIAGE CONTRACT BY HIRING NUMBER OF VEHICLES INCL UDING ALLEGED OWN VEHICLES. SINCE RECEIPTS FROM CONTRACT EXECUTED BY YOU DURING THE YEAR EXCEEDS RS. 40 LAKHS, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT YOU WERE LIAB LE TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH YOU HAVE FAILED TO DO. THUS YOU ARE LIABLE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 2 71A OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE REPLIED AS UN DER: AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. UNITED RICE LAND LTD. IN CASE THE TRUCKS ARE PROVIDED BY TRANSPORTERS WHO ARE HAVING LINKS W ITH TRUCK OPERATORS AND THEIR CONSIDERATION FOR PROVIDING SUC H TRUCK IS ABOUT RS. 200/- PER TRUCK. THE SAID DECISION HAS B EEN RELIED UPON BY YOUR HONOUR IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 25,000/-. 5 ON APPEAL PENALTY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(A). 6. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE ARE S ATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASS ESSEE IS AN EX-SERVICEMAN AND IS DERIVING INCOME FROM PENSION A ND INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO OPERATING TRUCKS AND INCOME FR OM THE SAME WAS RETURNED U/S 44AE FOR WHICH NO BOOKS ARE REQUIR ED TO BE 3 MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SOM E PAYMENTS FROM BAJAJSONS LTD. AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS MERELY SUPPLYING THE TRUCKS AND IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. UNITE D RICE LAND LTD. THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO CONTRACT WITH THE INDIVIDUAL TRUCK OWNERS AND THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF ONLY COMMISSION FOR WHICH NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T THIS IS A CASE OF EX-SERVICEMAN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AS SESSEE MAY HAVE ENTERTAINED BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IN OU R OPINION, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE SAME. 8 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.8.2013 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 23.8.2013 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/THE DR