SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7-1, JAIPUR

ITA 556/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3704 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Salary income; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 556/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, PLOT NO. 81, GEEJGARH VIHAR, HAWA SARAK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ADYPP 8296 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 01.08.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/08/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2018 OF LD. CIT (A)-3, JAIPUR ARISING FROM THE PEN ALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 9,150/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY A NY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. NECESSARY COST BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NO. 556/JP/2018 SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST ON BANK DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF IN COME ON 20.07.2013. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 3,51,977/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, AS PER 26AS THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS RS. 4,14, 719/-. WHEN THIS DISCREPANCY WAS POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AL INCOME OF RS. 28,348/-. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 28,348/- WHI LE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND ALSO INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE AO FINALLY LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 9,150/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 28,348/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INTEREST INCOME AS PER THE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE TDS CREDIT WA S ALSO CLAIMED ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 3,51,977/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, A S PER THE FORM 26AS, THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS REVEALED AND THE AO POINTED OUT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE INTEREST INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER THE FORM 26AS. THUS IT WAS ONLY DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF CORRECT AMOUNT OF I NTEREST ON FDR, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE INCOME OF RS. 3,51,977/-. THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE TDS CREDIT OF RS. 38,664/- WHE REAS AS PER THE FORM 26AS THE TDS CREDIT WAS RS. 41,492/-. HENCE, THE LD. A/R H AS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF INCOMPLETE DETAILS AND INADVERTENT MISTA KE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO. 556/JP/2018 SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR. WHICH DO NOT FALL IN THE CATEGORY OF EITHER CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE AO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 26. 10.2015 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE GROUND FOR LEVY OF PENALTY AND THEREFORE, THE SAID NOTICE SUFFERS FROM ILLEGALITY IN VIEW OF THE DECIS ION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KAR.). 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTAT ED THE INTEREST INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS DETECTED BY THE AO AND, THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INTEREST INC OME OF RS. 3,51,977/- AND ALSO CLAIMED TDS CREDIT OF RS. 38,664/-. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 28,348/- DUE TO THE DISCREPANCY FOUND IN THE INTEREST INCOME DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST INCOME APPEARING IN FORM 26AS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE CORRECT INCOME IN ITS BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE RECORD WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY BUT THE INTERES T INCOME ON THE FDR IS WITH THE BANK AND, THEREFORE, THE RECORD OF INTEREST INCOME AND TDS DEDUCTED BY THE BANK ON THE SAID INCOME IS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ENTIRE D ETAILS OF INTEREST INCOME WAS AVAILABLE IN THE FORM 26AS, THEN THE DISCREPANCY OF RS. 28,348/- IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THE MISCALCULATION OF THE INTEREST INCOME BY THE AS SESSEE. THERE WAS NO SCOPE OF CONCEALING THE SAID INCOME AS IT IS ALREADY AVAILAB LE WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN FORM 26AS WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE A ND, THEREFORE, WHEN THE 4 ITA NO. 556/JP/2018 SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR. ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS OF DECLARING LES S INCOME WHICH WERE NOT FOUND TO BE MALAFIDE, THEN WHILE CONSIDERING THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS DECLARED AS PER THE DETAILS AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE TDS ONLY AGAINST THE SAID INCOME CLEARLY MADE OUT A CASE OF BONAFIDE EXPLANAT ION IN TERMS OF CLAUSE-B OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS AND, THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME IS CANCELLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/08/2 018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 02/08/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT-SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 556/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO. 556/JP/2018 SHRI UDAY SINGH PALAWAT, JAIPUR.