ACIT, UDAIPUR V. Shri Laxmi Lal Patel, UDAIPUR

ITA 506/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 50623314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 506 / JU/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 9 - 10 THE A.C.I.T VS. SHRI LAXMI LAL PATEL CIRCLE RISHABDEV [THANA] UDAIPUR TEHSI KHERAWARA UDAIPUR PAN NO. AAZPP 5718 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A SSESSEE B Y : NONE DEPARTMENT B Y : SHRI N.A. JOSHI , DR DATE OF H EARING : 09 . 0 6 .201 4 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 . 0 7 . 201 4 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA , J .M. TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) , UDAIPUR DATED 0 8 . 0 8 .20 1 3 PERTAINING TO A.Y 200 9 - 10 AND EMANATES FROM THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 17.02.2012 PASSED BY THE ITO, WARD - 1(1), UDAIPUR U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 ['THE ACT', FOR SHORT] . 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR, REGISTERED WITH PWD OF THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. AS USUAL, THE ASSESSEE IS RE QUIRED TO GIVE EARNEST MONEY, SECURITY DEPOSIT, BANK GUARANTEE OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS TO THE DEPARTMENT WITH A VIEW TO TAKE PART IN TENDERS BEFORE ALLOTMENT OF THE SAME. FOR THAT PURPOSE, FDRS IN THE NAME OF PWD HAS TO BE MADE WITH THE SAID BANKER. THE ASSES SEE MAINTAINED FULL RECORD ABOUT THE INTEREST ACCRUED ON THESE FDRS AS TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SYNDICATE BANK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 7,22,815/ - . THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. AS PER FORM NO. 26AS, INTEREST INCOM E WAS FOUND TO BE OF RS. 11,89,940/ - WHICH LED TO THE ADDITION OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE A.Y. 2009 - 10 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, A SUM OF RS. 4,57,946/ - WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ZILLA COLLECTOR [RELIEF], UDAIPUR O N 11.11.2008. THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED THROUGH CHEQUE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE SYNDICATE BANK. THIS ACCOUNT IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE AUDITED BOOKS. THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS DI S CUSSED ABOVE AND RECEIPT IN THE NAME OF RELIEF RECEIVED BY THE 3 ASSESSEE WERE NOT DISCLOSED FOR TAX PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. 3. NONE APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSION S HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE LD. A.R. ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALL THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME [RO I] AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TRUE AND UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THEY WERE TRUE. IT WAS ONLY DUE TO INCOMPLETE INFORMATION/DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE BANK/DEPARTMENT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION RESULTED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. NEVER TRIED TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT FACTS FROM THE RESPECTIVE BANK OR ZILLA COLLECTOR [RELIEF] AND SIMPLE REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS IMPOSED IMPUGNED PENALTY. IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS NOT A CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE ACTION ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING FALSE PARTICULARS OF THE TAXABLE INCOME. FURTHER STATEMENT WAS THAT MERE REJECTION OR NON - ACCEPTANCE OF 4 ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WOULD NOT LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS NOT EVEN GUILT Y OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO CONCEAL HIS INCOME. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER FOUND TO BE FALSE. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT AGREEABLE AND IMPOSED IMPUGNED PENALTY. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER ACCEPTED THE SAME, HAS CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME NOR HAS FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED FDRS AND HAS STATED THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE BANK HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE AUDITED ALSO, AS PER FORM NO. 26AS, INTEREST INCOME WAS FOUND TO BE MORE AND AS A RESULT OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND AMOUNT REFLECTED IN FORM NO. 26AS, IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS OCCURRED. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THIS CANNOT BE A CASE OF EITHER OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND AUDITORS HAVE NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE OBSERVATION IN THE REPORT. REGARDING RECEIPT FROM ZILLA COLLECTOR [RELIEF], CHEQUE HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND THE AMOUNT IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 5 OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AUDITED. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVED FORM 16A/PAYMENT SHEET/VAT 41, ETC REGARDING RECEIPT FROM RESPECTIVE DEPARTM ENT WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO THIS INADVERTENT MISTAKE. WE HAVE ALSO FOUND THIS FACT TO BE CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER AWARDED ANY WORK NOR HE HAD DONE ANY WORK FOR THE ZILLA COLLECTOR [RELIEF] DEPARTMENT, UDAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RAISED ANY B ILL FOR WORK DONE IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THIS IS ALSO NOT GROUND FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. MERE REJECTION OR NON - ACCEPTANCE OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WOULD NOT LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALSO CONFIRM THE DELETION OF PENALTY AND DISMISS THE APPEAL. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST JULY , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME M B ER DATED : 21 ST JULY, 201 4 VL/ - COPY TO: 6 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT BY ORDER 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR