SHRI MOHAMMAD IQBAL QURESHI, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), SRINAGAR

ITA 379/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8358 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANPREET SINGH DUGGAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 379/ASR/2018 (Assessment Year: 2006-07) Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi, Prop. M/s. Jasmine R/o Umer Colony, Lal Bazar, Srinagar [PAN: AAEPQ 0668G] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(2), Srinagar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Upender Bhat, C.A. Respondent by Sh Manpreet Singh Duggal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.07.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Jalandhar (Camp office at Srinagar) {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO no.95/12-13/CIT(A)/Jammu date of order 06.03.2018, passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2006-07. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-III(2), Srinagar (in brevity the A.O) passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for the order dated 28.05.2012. 2. The brief fact of the case is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed & assessed demand amount of Rs.2,84,429/-. Assessee had paid the tax and not filed any appeal against the order of the ld. AO. The penalty proceeding was initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) and penalty was levied @100% of the tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,89,726/-. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After the detail hearing, the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the penalty in favour of the revenue. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal against the order of ld. CIT(A) before us. 3. The ld. Counsel of the assessee appeared and draw our attention on the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. He further pointed out that addition was made based on difference of opening balance of Sundry Creditors amount of ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO Rs.4,18,876/-, violation of section 40A(3) of the Act amount to Rs.60,000/- and disallowance of expenses amount to Rs.50.000/-. No other concealment was found during the assessment. The ld. Counsel further argued that assessee for buying peace in mind paid the tax the not filed any appeal against the order of ld. AO. 4. The ld. SR DR argued and mentioned that the penalty cannot be stopped on the basis of the non-filing of appeal and payment of demanded tax u/s. 143(3). 5. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. The additions were made by the ld. AO on the basis of difference in opening balance of sundry creditors (ii) violation of section 40(A)(3) and disallowance of expenses. The respectful observation of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), merely because a claim has not been accepted in the assessment, it would not follow that the assessee had concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. We also observed that the submission made only on the basis of expenses and difference ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO in opening balance of sundry creditors. Considering the order of apex court we directed to delete the penalty amount to Rs.1,89,726/-,levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order