SHRI AVINASH SINGH , JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 3 (1), JALANDHAR

ITA 448/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7138 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKIT KUMAR AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J S BHASIN
• Keywords: Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH SMC AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.448/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SH. AVINASH SINGH, C/O M/S JARNAIL SINGH & SONS, MILAP CHOWK, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AQVPS7827C ASSESSEE BY : SH. J. S. BHASIN, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ANKIT KUMAR AGGARWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03.05.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2,JALANDHAR. 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) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,69,073/-. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 16.07.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.3 ,40,690/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON , THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.9,40,690/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.6,00,0 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO. 448/ASR./2018 AVINASH SIN GH 2 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. T HEREAFTER, THE AO LEVIED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APP EAL TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN INITIATING AND IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHILE THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY INITI ATED WAS ON DIFFERENT LIMB THEN THE PENALTY LEVIED. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAG E NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.11.2011. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY WAS LE VIED BY THE AO FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE REFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ON DIFFERENT COUNT THEN THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE PENALTY L EVIED BY THE AO ON DIFFERENT CHARGE THEN THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS W AS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THIS FACT WRONGLY CONFI RMED THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS DELETED. ITA NO. 448/ASR./2018 AVINASH SIN GH 3 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16/01/2019) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 16/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR