M/s Shubash Chandra Katiyar, Kanpur V. Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 479/LKW/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3963 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 479/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 479/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2012-13 M/S. SUBHASH CHANDRA KATIYAR 11/342, BLOCK-F, SOOTER GANJ KANPUR PAN:-ABGPK 7298 D VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-III KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER P. K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) KANPUR, DATED 27.05.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 BY WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 LAKH. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSE E U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF TWO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT. THE FIRST ADDITION RELATES TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE NET PROFIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE NET PROFIT BY REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) AT RS. 8,40,370/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GONE IN APPEAL, THE OTHER ADDITION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIKAS GARG, C.A. REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 18.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.10.2016 I.T.A. NO. 479/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 2 FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE INT EREST ON REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 37,940/- AS IN HIS INCOME. SO FAR THE LEVY OF P ENALTY ON ESTIMATION OF THE INCOME IS CONCERNED, I FOUND THAT THIS CASE IS DULY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH CHANDRA AGARWAL VS. CIT 38 TAXMAN.COM 397 IN WHICH THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT WHEN ADDITION WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. SO W E, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLIWNG THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH CHANDRA AGARWAL VS. CIT 38 TAXMAN.COM 397 DE LETE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 8,40,370/- MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. 3. NOW COMING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTEREST ON REFUND OF THE INCOME TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 37,940/- IS CONCERNED. WE NOTE D THAT AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAID INCOME IS NOT TAXABLE. ASSESSEE IS DULY DISCLOSED T HE REFUND RECEIVED AND IT WAS MERELY INADVERTENT ERROR THAT THE INTEREST RECE IVED HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS INCOME. THE SAID VIEW HAS B EEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOP ERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 348 ITR 306. WHEN HONBLE SUPREME COURT ITSELF ACCE PTED IN THE CASE OF A MULTINATIONAL FIRM WHICH WAS DEALING WITH INCOME TA X CASES THAT THERE WAS INADVERTENT ERROR AND BONA FIDE ON THE PART OF THAT FIRM IN NOT INCLUDING THE INCOME IN TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WHO IS MEREL Y A BUSINESSMAN AND IS NOT FULLY AWARE OF ABOUT THE INTRICACIES OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT IN OUR OPINION HAS A STRONG CASE OF COMMITTING THE INADVERTENT ERR OR AND, THEREFORE, THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE CANNOT BE DOUBTED . I.T.A. NO. 479/LKW/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2012-13 3 4. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE PENALTY EVEN IN RESPEC T OF ADDITION OF RS. 37,940/- RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 348 ITR 306. THUS, WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING T O RS. 3 LAKH. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 19.10.2016). SD/- SD/- (ABY T. VARKEY) (P. K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R DATED: 19.10.2016 *SHARAD COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR