SHRI SANTOKH SINGH , KAPURTHALA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAPURTHALA

ITA 498/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7130 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 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: 09-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.498/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SH. SANTOKH SINGH, C/O SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA, B- 18, VAKIL BUILDING, MODEL TOWN ROAD, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, KAPURTHALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. DBXPS4379R ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. BHAWAN I SHANKAR, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A)-2, J ALANDHAR, DATED 27.08.2018, IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF T HE CASE. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A), JALANDHAR WAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A), JALANDHAR WAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN PASS ING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) AND WITHOUT ITA NO. 498/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 2 COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY CONDITIONS U/S 271 AS ENVISAGED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A), JALANDHAR WAS ERRED IN L AW IN UPHELD THE ORDER PARTLY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSE SSEE. 5. THAT ASSESSEE REQUEST TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THIS CASE WA S REOPENED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE KAPURTHALA CENTRA L CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.25,30, 000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS.21,44,2 71/- AND ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT A ND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.4,72,028/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS.2,07,867/- A S AGAINST THE PENALTY OF RS.4,72,028/- LEVIED BY THE AO. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE PENALTY NOTICE HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. OUR ATTENTION WA S DRAWN TOWARDS THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 12.01.2016 (COP Y OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIONS O F VARIOUS COURTS AS CITED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHT ANI VS DCIT, CC-I, ITA NO. 498/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 3 FARIDABAD IN ITA NO. 4325/DEL/2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11, ORDER DATED 22.11.2017. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELH I BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON E OF US (VICE PRESIDENT) IS A CO-SIGNATORY IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.11.201 7, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. 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 B E SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LI ABLE FOR PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EM ERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT: '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPE CIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. ITA NO. 498/ASR./2018 SANTOKH SING H 4 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 SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL F OR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. 8. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFE RRED TO ORDER DATED 22.11.2017, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 16/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR