VIBHUTI R, SHAH, MUMBAI V. ITO 18(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5188/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75654 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SAHU
• Assessee Lawyers: N R AGARWAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 147; 27

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F B ENCH, MUMBAI . , !'# , $% &'() , $* +, $ # BEFORE SHRI D.MANMOHAN, VP AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIY A, AM ./ I.T.A. NO.5188/MUM/2012 ( - - - - / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2002-03 MRS. VIBHUTI R. SHAH, 401, B. PATEL APARTMENTS, CAMPA COLA, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 / VS. THE ITO-18(1)(1), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI ,. $* ./ /0 ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEUPS 5918R ( .1 / APPELLANT ) .. ( 23.1 / RESPONDENT ) .1 4 $ / APPELLANT BY: SHRI N.R. AGARWAL 23.1 5 4 $ / RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R.K. SAHU 5 6* / DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2014 7- 5 6* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:21.02.2014 +$8 / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: WITH THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-29, MUMBAI DT.26.06.2012 P ERTAINING TO A.Y. 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 95,152/-. ITA NO. 5188/M/2012 2 3. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W. SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DT. 12.12.2007. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING C ERTAIN EXPENDITURE ALONGWITH SOME OTHER DISALLOWANCES. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) IN QUANTUM APPEAL , WHO ALLOWED CERTAIN RELIEF BUT CONFIRMED A DDITIONS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,08,937/-. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THESE ADDITIONS AND LEVIED PENALTY AT THE RATE OF 100% AMOUNTING TO RS. 95,152/-. IT WAS CONTENDED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT OLD ACCOUNTANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME W ITH ARITHMETICAL ERRORS AND UNDER WRONG ADVISE. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR FROM THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE. IN THE OPINION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 322 ITR 15 8. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE , SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES , RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF TH E HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. 327 ITR 510 AND ALSO ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS ECS LTD 336 ITR 162 AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHADHA SUGARS (P) LTD VS ACIT 17 ITR (T) 316. ITA NO. 5188/M/2012 3 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE DECISIO NS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. FACTS ON RECORD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD CLAIMED FOLLOWING EXPENSES: I) RENT AND TAXES RS. 2,44,937/- II) LIFT MAINTENANCE RS. 14,000/- III) WITHDRAWAL RS. 50,000/- -------------------- TOTAL RS. 3,08,937/- =========== 8. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SHOWS THAT THE EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED AGAINST INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF SECTION 24 OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT ONLY SP ECIFIED DEDUCTIONS ARE ALLOWED FROM INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE EXPE NSES WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NEITHER SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE NOR THE EXPENSE OF LIFT MAINTENANCE IS ALL OWABLE U/S. 24 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HER CLAIM EVEN BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT NOT ONLY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAIL ED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID CLAIM. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CL AIMING SUCH EXPENSES ARE NOT SHOWN TO BE BONAFIDE. THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE ARE CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF RELIANCE PETRO PR ODUCTS (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT THE ENTIRE BLAME ON THE ACCOUNTANT . HOWEVER, AN ACCOUNTANTS VIEW IS NOT REALLY MATERIAL FOR DECIDI NG THE DEDUCTIBILITY OR OTHERWISE OF AN EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE KNEW ABO UT THE PROBLEM AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, BUT THE CLAIM OF EXPENDIT URE WAS STILL MADE NOT ONLY THIS, THE CLAIM WAS PURSUED EVEN UP TO THE LEV EL OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THEREFORE IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE CLAIM OF ITA NO. 5188/M/2012 4 EXPENDITURE WAS NOT ONLY WRONG BUT ALSO FALSE AND I T WAS PERSISTENT WITH FOR SOME TIME. SINCE NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION W AS FURNISHED EVEN BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF PATENTLY FALSE CLAIM OF EXP ENDITURE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITSELF LIABLE FOR PENALTY. WE, ACCORDINGLY CO NFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.2.2014 . +$8 5 - * $ 9 :+ ; 21.2.2014 5 < SD/- SD/ (D.MANMOHAN ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) !'# / VICE PRESIDENT $* +, / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; :+ DATED 21.2.2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS +$8 +$8 +$8 +$8 5 55 5 26& 26& 26& 26& =$&-6 =$&-6 =$&-6 =$&-6 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. .1 / THE APPELLANT 2. 23.1 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. > ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. > / CIT 5. &?< 26 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. < / GUARD FILE. +$8 +$8 +$8 +$8 / BY ORDER, 3&6 26 //TRUE COPY// ! !! ! / / / / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI