SHRI PURAN SINGH , JALANDHAR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR

ITA 418/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7065 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 10-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYN AKA AHUJA
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.418/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 SH. PURAN SINGH, C/O SH. DINESH SARNA, ADV., B- 18, VAKIL BUILDING, MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. BMDPS5757A ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. PRIYN AKA AHUJA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-5, LUDHIANA. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSME NT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS.25,92,953/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS .22,41,163/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS ITA NO. 418/ASR./2018 PURAN SINGH 2 AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.23,51,790/-. HE LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.6,27,82 3/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.20,00,000/- U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE REFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS ONLY OF RS.3,51,790/- B UT HE HAD LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE INCOME OF RS.23,51,790/-. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT WHILE INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S, THE AO FAILED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION TO THE FACT THAT, UNDER WHICH LIMB, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BECAUSE HE HAS M ENTIONED BOTH THE LIMBS I.E. THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULA RS AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE LD. CIT(A ), HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S HAS NOT MENTIONED AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 27.07.2016 (COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED WH ICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 4325/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, FARIDABAD, ORDER DATED 22.11.2017 (COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME ITA NO. 418/ASR./2018 PURAN SINGH 3 AND ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . THEREFORE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELH I BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON E OF US (VICE PRESIDENT) IS A CO-SIGNATORY IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.11.201 7, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE NOTICE DATED 28.12 .2011 PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, IT CAN B E SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LI ABLE FOR PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EM ERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT: '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPE CIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDG MENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION , NO ITA NO. 418/ASR./2018 PURAN SINGH 4 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL F OR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. 8. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFE RRED TO ORDER DATED 22.11.2017, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 15/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR