SHRIMATI ANITA SEHGAL , JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 432/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7088 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K VATTA
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3)

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.432/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2014-15 SMT. ANITA SEHGAL, 682-683, MODEL TOWN, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AIZPS1232R ASSESSEE BY : SH. S. K. VATTA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. BHAWAN I SHANKAR, 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 10.05.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2015 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.5,35 ,840/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OFF RS.29,04,873/- U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,68,038/-. THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THERE ITA NO. 432/ASR./2018 ANITA SEHGAL 2 WAS A MISTAKE IN CALCULATION OF THE INTEREST WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.4,06,122/- U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE TH E AO. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE MISTAKE IN CALCULATION OF INTEREST WAS NEITHER DETECTED NOR POINTED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY POINTED OUT TO THE AO FOR ALLO WING THE REDUCED CLAIM. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. THE REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: CIT VS ANITA KUMARAN (2017) 148 DTR 201 (MADRAS) VIJAY GUPTA VS CIT (2016) 137 DTR 411 (DEL.) M/S RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 230 CTR 320 (S C) CIT VS AJAIB SINGH & CO. (2002) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) TOSCANA LASTS LTD. VS ITO (2014) 107 DTR 27 (DEL.) MERIDIAN IMPEX VS ACIT (2014) 107 DTR 89 (ITAT RAJKOT) ITO VS KULDEEP SOOD ENTERPRISES (2006) 103 TTJ 573 (CHD.) CEMENT MARKETING OF INDIA LTD. VS ACIT (1980) 124 I TR 15-18 (SC) CIT VS INDEN BISTERS (1990) 240 ITR 943 (MADRAS) 5. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THIS WAS A CASE OF EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REVISED THE CLAIM OF INTEREST SUO MOTO RATHER THE SAME WAS DONE ONLY WHEN THE SPECIFIC QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE AO WITH REGARD TO THE RENTAL INCOME FLOOR WISE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ETC. ITA NO. 432/ASR./2018 ANITA SEHGAL 3 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW A ND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE NO. 19 O F THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT, IN WHICH THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS AS CITED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT, CC-I, FARIDABAD IN ITA NO. 43 25/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ORDER DATED 22.11.2017. 7. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE OBSERVA TIONS MADE THEREIN. 8. 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 DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ONE OF US (VIC E PRESIDENT) IS A CO- SIGNATORY IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.11.2017, IT HA S 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 C ASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE REGULAR A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2011 PRODU CED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CAS E OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HONBLE KARNATA KA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EMERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT: ITA NO. 432/ASR./2018 ANITA SEHGAL 4 '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 PROCEEDIN GS 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 RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CA SE 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 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINA TION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. 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 AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. (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