ACIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Pratap Hoon, Chandigarh

ITA 386/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77162 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SINGH
• Keywords: Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.386/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ACIT, VS. SHRI PARTAP HOON, CIRCLE 2(1), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AADPH9091F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.S. NAGAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.M. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 30.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.07.2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.01.2014 OF CIT (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING EFFECTIVE GROUND:- 2. WHETHER IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271)1)(C) WHEN THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY REGARDING DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE FOR NON COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND AS SESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE OF HIS OWN. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURI NG ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAI D INTEREST OF RS. 11,70,843/- TO M/S HERO HONDA MOTORS LTD. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED, THE REFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,70,843/- ON WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT WERE ALSO INITIATED. IN 2 RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENAL TY, IT WAS STATED THAT TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IT THE CURRENT YEAR, THEREFORE, I NTEREST PAYMENT WOULD BECOME ALLOWABLE. FURTHER, SINCE NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED, PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. HOWEVER, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NO T ACCEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS AND LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY @ 100% AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,94,110/-. 4. ON APPEAL, IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE INFORMATION. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMI NING THE CONTENTIONS OBSERVED THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HA S DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREAFTER FOL LOWING CERTAIN DECISIONS DELETED THE PENALTY. 5. BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THEREFORE, PENALT Y WAS NOT LEVIABLE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFUL LY AND WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FUR NISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN FACT, TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCT ED IN THE NEXT YEAR AND EVEN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR S, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY AND ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NOT HING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.07.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 9 TH JULY, 2014 RKK 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR