AnitaKumaran, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 434/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 43421714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: PRATAPKARAN PA UL
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.434, 442 & 443/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 SMT. ANITA KUMARAN NO.10, ROYAL ENCLAVE BESANT AVENUE ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX BUSINESS CIRCLE III CHENNAI [PAN AAFPA 3255 N] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRATAPKARAN PAUL, CA /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 10-06-2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-06-2015 /ORDER PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS-V), CHENNAI, DATED 22.11.2013, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11 CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE TH REE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.434, 442 & 443/14 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI PRATAPKARAN PAUL, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 20 09-10 AND 2010- 11, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE ON TRAVELL ING AND OTHERS U/S 57 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE , THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED AN ACCOUNTANT TO LOOK AFTER HER FINANCIAL A FFAIRS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ACCOUNTANT IN FACT HAN DLED ALL THE BANK TRANSACTIONS, MAINTENANCE AND FINALIZATION OF ACCOU NTS, COMPUTATION OF THE INCOME FOR FILING INCOME-TAX RETURN ETC. IN TH E RETURN FILED, AN EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED U/S 57 OF THE ACT TOWARDS TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR EARNING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE EXPENDITURE CL AIMED U/S 57 WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER PROPERLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ACCOUNTANT HAS NOT KEPT ANY RECORDS W ITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IN THE OFFICE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM MADE AND PAID THE TAXES THEREON. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS W ERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL INC OME EARNED BY HER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO CLAIMED THE TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR EARNING THAT INCO ME. DUE TO THE ITA NOS.434, 442 & 443/14 :- 3 -: ABSENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE NECESSARY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, MERELY BECAUSE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERE D ISALLOWANCE OF AN EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER FURNISHI NG ALL NECESSARY DETAILS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THI S IS NOT A CASE FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 57 OF THE ACT FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS TOWAR DS TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SUPPORTING M ATERIALS FOR THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 57 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO RECORDS WERE MAINTAIN ED, ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION VOLUNTARILY. THEREFORE, A CCORDING TO THE LD. DR, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE ASSESSING ITA NOS.434, 442 & 443/14 :- 4 -: OFFICER, CONFIRMED THE SAME. THEREFORE, NO INTERFE RENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TRAVELLING AND OTHER EXPENSES FOR E ARNING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE ACCOUNTANT ENGAGED BY HER WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AND THE VOUCHERS AND OTHER DO CUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR PRODUCTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME TOWARDS EXPE NDITURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME FOR WANT OF E VIDENCE, WHETHER THE SAME COULD BE CONSTRUED AS FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIAN CE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158, HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING ALL DETAILS CLAIMS A DEDUCTION WHICH WAS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE MATER IAL DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE TOWARDS EXPENDITURE WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED DUE TO TEMPORARY ABSENCE OF THE ACCOUNTANT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CON SIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN ITA NOS.434, 442 & 443/14 :- 5 -: FACT, THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY CONCEDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO OFFER THE SAID EXPENDITURE AS INCOME AND PAID THE T AXES ALSO. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED . ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND P ENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS DEL ETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 19 TH JUNE, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF