Smt.Keeparti Ramaraju Yashoda , Bangalore V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1), Bangalore

ITA 488/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4622 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 488 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 1 1 SMT. KEEPARTI RAMARAJU YASHODA, # 102/5, 7 TH A MAIN, 3 RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 011. PAN: AAAPY9578P VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 [1], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PADMA MEENAKSHI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 7 .0 6 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 6 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 10, BANGALORE DATED 16.01.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR AS THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT O F EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED U/S 271[1][C] OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AS IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE AS TO WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME FROM THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 RWS 271 OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT[ A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.29,97,171/- U/S.271[1][C] OF THE ACT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT[A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR FURNISHED INAC CURATE ITA NO.488/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY AN D THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271[1][C] OF THE ACT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY LEVI ED IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE AND LIABLE TO BE REDUCED SUBSTANTIALLY. 6. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, YOUR APPELLANT HUMBLY PRAYS THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE RENDERED AND THE APPELLA NT MAY BE AWARDED COSTS IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ALSO OR DER FOR THE REFUND OF THE INSTITUTION FEES AS PART OF THE COSTS. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF IT ACT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 8 A OF THE PAPER BOOK AND FROM THE SAME, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE I T CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SRI A. NAGARAJU VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2196/BANG/2016 DATED 06.04.2018 AND PLACED RELIANCE ON IT. HE POIN TED OUT THAT IN THIS TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED JUDGMENT OF HON'BL E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON A ND GINNING FACTORY AS REPORTED IN (2013) 359 ITR 565 AND IT WAS HELD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER IS INVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PENALTY WAS DELETED. HE SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR LINE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND SIN CE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT MADE IT CLEAR IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HI M U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271 OF IT ACT THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME OR OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE TR IBUNAL ORDER CITED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SRI A NAGARAJU VS. ITO(SUPRA) AND IN TURN THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) IS SQ UARELY APPLICABLE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE JUDGEMENTS, WE HOLD TH AT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AO IS INVALID AND AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO STANDS DELETED. ITA NO.488/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (ARUN KUMAR GARO DIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 15 TH JUNE, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.