Swati Garg, Bulandshahr V. ITO, Bulandshahr

ITA 365/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 36520114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH SMC SMC SMC SMC : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE , VICE , VICE , VICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT PRESIDENT ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO . .. . 365/DEL/2014 365/DEL/2014 365/DEL/2014 365/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008 - -- - 09 0909 09 MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, 2, SUNDER PURI, 2, SUNDER PURI, 2, SUNDER PURI, 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. PAN : AAZPG4577B. PAN : AAZPG4577B. PAN : AAZPG4577B. PAN : AAZPG4577B. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -4, 4,4, 4, BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. BULANDSHAHR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.K. JAISWAL, SR.DR. DATE OF HEARING : 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 10.06.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 16.07.2015 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), MEERUT DATED 29 TH OCTOBER, 2013. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DECI DED EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE A RGUMENTS OF LEARNED DR. 3. THE ONLY GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- BECAUSE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WAS ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AMOUNTED TO RS.14,760 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT 1961. ITA-365/DEL/2014 2 4. LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR A ND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LEARNED C IT(A). I FIND THAT A PETTY PENALTY OF `14,760/- WAS LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE ON TWO COUNTS, I.E., DUE TO ADDITION OF `29,025/- REGARDING EXPENSES ON PURCHASE OF STAMP AND REGISTRY EXPENSES AND `42,199/- F OR DIFFERENCE IN OPENING AND CLOSING CASH. I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME AT ` 1,65,170/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PLOT FOR `1,30,000/- WHICH WAS DU LY ACCOUNTED FOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT AN AMOUNT OF `29,0 25/- ON STAMP AND OTHER EXPENSES AND HAS FILED EXPLANATION REGA RDING THE SOURCE THEREOF. MERELY BECAUSE THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENSES OF `29,025/- WAS N OT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS NO REASON TO VISIT THE ASSESSEE W ITH PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA FIDE AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO SUGGEST THAT THE SA ME WAS MALA FIDE . LIKEWISE, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON ADDITION OF ` 42,199/- FOR DIFFERENCE IN OPENING AND CLOSING CASH WHICH WAS CLARI FIED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS A MISTAKE BY OVERSIGHT AND THERE WAS N O CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAU SE THE ADDITION MADE AT `42,199/- WAS JUSTIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF PREPON DERANCE OF PROBABILITIES BUT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2007 WAS `1,50,574/- IN THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT, BUT, AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 2007, IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AT `1,08,375/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT FORWARD A LESSER FIGURE AS COMPARED TO THE CLOSING FIGURE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT BY TAKING LESSER FIGURE OF OPE NING BALANCE AND ITA-365/DEL/2014 3 THE MISTAKE SEEMS TO BE INADVERTENT ONE AND DOES NOT DE SERVE TO BE PENALIZED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF `14,760/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THI S CASE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED AND, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (G. (G. (G. (G. C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA C. GUPTA ) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, MRS. SWATI GARG, 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR. 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR. 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR. 2, SUNDER PURI, BULANDSHAHR. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -4, BULANDSHAHR. 4, BULANDSHAHR. 4, BULANDSHAHR. 4, BULANDSHAHR. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR