SHRIMATI VEENA, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1 (4), JALANDHAR

ITA 554/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7114 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN JINDAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH SMC AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO.554/ASR./2018 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. VEENA, D/O SHAM LAL, H.NO. 59/4, DEOL NAGAR, NAKODAR ROAD, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AEPPV6629D ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHRAY SARNA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. LALIT MOHAN JINDAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2019 ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-1,JALANDHAR. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO TH E SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1 ,32,000/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON , THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.24,39,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SA VING BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S ITA NO. 554/ASR./2018 VEENA 2 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.6,93,499/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE NO. 14 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 05.12.2011 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATED 05.12.2011 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIATION OF PENALTY WAS ON DIF FERENT FOOTINGS AND THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR DIFFERENT CHARGE. THEREFORE, PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEN THERE WAS N O SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND T HE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT THE CHARGE WHIL E INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, TH E IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED ITA NO. 554/ASR./2018 VEENA 3 BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/01/2019) SD/- (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 17/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR