Sh. Aman Mehtani, New Delhi V. DCIT, Faridabad

ITA 4325/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3435 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B RAMANJANEYULU
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDI CIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4325/DEL/201 6 ( A.Y 2010-11) AMAN MEHTANI C/O. M/S. RRA TAX INDIA D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-1 NEW DELHI AFOPM8589F (APPELLANT) VS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 FARIDABAD (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SOMIL AGRAWAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY SH. B. RAMANJANEYULU, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 24/06/2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)-3, GURGAON. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDIN G THE ACTION OF LD. A.O IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.41,125/- U/S 271( 1)(C) AND THAT TOO WITHOUT ASSUMING JURISDICTION AS PER LAW AND WI THOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. DATE OF HEARING 26.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2017 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) QUA THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWAN CES OF RS.41,125/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARIN G INCOME OF RS.27,15,360/- ON 6/10/2010. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS MADE ON 28/12/2011 AT AN INCOME OF RS.38,4 8,450/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE A.O MADE ADDITIONS IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ABOVE ADDITIONS AND NOTICE U/S 27 4 READ WITH SECTION 271 WAS ISSUED ON 2812-2011. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 19/11/2012 DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,33,088/- STATING THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESSED FOR THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL AS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.1,33,088/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION CLAIM WAS UND ER SECTION 24(B) OF THE ACT. 5. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED U/S 271(1) (C) AND THE A.O IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.41,125/-. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE CHARGE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE PENA LTY WAS FRAMED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR PRODUCED THE NOTICE DATED 28.1 2.2011 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS WHEREIN TH E DECISION OF CIT VS. MANJU NATH COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 W AS CONSIDERED. 7. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT IN THE PRESENT CAS E. 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 BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HONBLE KA RNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EMERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT: 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHE R FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON A ND 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 SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COU RT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22ND NOVEMBER, 2017 . SD/- SD/- (N. K. SAINI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 22/11/2017 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 26/10/2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 26/10/2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER .2017 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 22.11.2017 PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 22.11.2017 PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.