Gandhi Manoj Hiralal Prop. Suraj Automobiles, Solapur V. ACIT, Solapur

ITA 551/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3261 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANTKUMAR C LEUVA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 133A; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBE R I.T.A. NO. 551/PN/2010 : A.Y. 2001-02 GANDHI MANOJ HIRALAL 19 MARKET YARD, SHOPPING CENTRE, KARMALA DIST. SOLAPUR PAN AAXPG 4794Q : APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. CIT CIR. 2 SOLAPUR : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI HEMANTKUMAR C. LEUVA ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III PUNE DATED 23-12-2009 WHEREIN THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN OPPOSED. 2. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE INFORMATION ABOUT INVESTMENT IN PLOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREV IOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF DEPARTMENT ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMIS ES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 2-2-2006 WHEREIN IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD MADE INVESTMENTS OF RS. 1,60,0 00/- IN PLOT AND THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF ITA NO. 551/PN/10 GANDHI MANOJ HIRALAL A.Y. 2001-02 , 2 INCOME FILED BY HIM FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS DISCLOSE D THE INVESTMENT IN PLOT WAS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT. THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE INVESTMENT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY HIM BUT ALSO FAILED TO DIS CLOSE THE SAME BY FILING REVISED RETURN WITHIN THE TIME PERMI TTED BY THE STATUTE. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS NOT FOUND TO BE CORRECT THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE BY HIM VOLUNTA RILY AS HE FILED THE RETURN SHOWING INVESTMENT IN PLOT S HOWING INVESTMENT IN PLOT IN A.Y. 2001-02 ON 31-3-2006, BE FORE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALSO NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. THE RETURN SHOWING INVESTMENT IN PLOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31-3-2006 AFTER EXPIR Y OF THE TIME PERMITTED FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ONLY IN PURSUANCE OF THE DETECTION OF UNDISC LOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE SURVEY ACTION TAKEN IN THE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN ON 31-3 -2006. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER VOLUNTARILY N OR IN GOOD FAITH HAS DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFI ED IN ITA NO. 551/PN/10 GANDHI MANOJ HIRALAL A.Y. 2001-02 , 3 UPHOLDING THE PENALTY IN QUESTION WHICH DOES NOT RE QUIRE INTERFERENCE BY ME. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 . SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE,DATED THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- IV PUNE (4) CIT(A)- III PUNE (5) THE D.R. ITAT PUNE BENCH, PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE