Sh. Subhash Chopra, Derabassi V. Addl. CIT, R-VI, Mohali

ITA 576/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0314 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Agreed addition; Competent authority
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 576/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. SUBHASH CHOPRA, H.NO. 64/2, ADARSH NAGAR, CHOPRA TOWER, DERABASSI M/S ADDL. CIT , RANGE VI, MOHALI ./PAN NO: AARPC2683C / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. PANKAJ BHALLA, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.11. 2018 %'/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2018 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, CHANDIGARH [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)] AG ITATING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). . 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, WHEREIN, TH E ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ADJUDICATE V ARIOUS LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE LD. COUNSEL H AS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) TO SH OW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE HIM ITA NO. 576/CHD/2018- SH. SUBHASH CHOPRA, DERABASSI 2 WHICH WERE DEFECTIVE AS GROUND NO.1 WAS REPEATED I N GROUND NO.2. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PA GE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.9.2017 ALONG W ITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED REVISED GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN FORM NO. 35 AND IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL / REVISED / LEGAL GRO UNDS RAISED HAVE SIGNIFICANT BEARING ON THE TAX LIABILITY OF THE ASS ESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THEY NEED TO BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED. THE LD. COUNSE L HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH I S COPY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A). THE SAID GROUNDS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 2,95,000/- U/S 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY BASE A ND REASONS THEREOF. 2. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D IS IN CONTRAVENTIO N TO THE EXPRESSED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D AS IT IS IMPOSED BY AUTHORITY NOT BEING AUTHORITY AS ENVISAG E U/S 271D. THAT THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION TO IMPOSED PENALTY U /S 271D AS NOT BEING COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DO SO. 3. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2, THE PENALT Y LEVIED U/S 271D IS VOID ABNITIO FOR THE REASON THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS NOT DONE DURIN G PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE SETT LED LEGAL POSITION. 4. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 2 AND 3, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D IS VOID ABNITIO FOR THE REA SON THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS NOT DONE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME WHICH IS IN ITSELF ILLEGAL A ND NON-MAINTAINABLE. 5. THAT THE LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271D WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT GENUINE TRANSACTION BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS IS NOT COVERED UNDER MISCHIEF U/S 269SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THAT THE LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO ADJUDICATE THE DETAILED REPLY FURNISHED BY THE COUNSEL JUDICIOUSLY AND FAILED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS TO WHY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY IS NOT ITA NO. 576/CHD/2018- SH. SUBHASH CHOPRA, DERABASSI 3 PROVED AS TO WHY THE SITUATION IS NOT COVERED UNDER REASONABLE CAUSE AS DEFINED U/S 273B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND AS TO HOW THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE CITATION REPORTED BY THE COUNSEL . 7. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 271D IS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED IN A BONAFIDE MANNER. 8. THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271D IS OVER AND ABO VE THE AGREED ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- MADE DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TO COVER UP OF ANY REVENUE LEAKAGE. THIS IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE SETTLED LE GAL POSITION. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO VARY, ALTER OR ADD ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL 3. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), HOWEVER, REVEALS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE ADDITIONAL / LEGAL / REVISED GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION UPON THE ADDITIONAL / LEGAL / REVISED GROUNDS, AS N OTED ABOVE. 4. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WI TH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ORDER ON MERITS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL / LEGAL / REVISED GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.11.2018 SD/- SD/- ( . . , # $ / B.R.R. KUMAR) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15.11.2018 ITA NO. 576/CHD/2018- SH. SUBHASH CHOPRA, DERABASSI 4 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR