KAMAL PAHUJA, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 51(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 5937/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6651 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DLEHI BEFORE : SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5937/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 KAMAL PAHUJA, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O R. KUMAR SINGHAL & CO., WARD 51(2), NEW DELHI . BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI PAN : ALNPP7559P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PANKAJ GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY: MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 04.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.02.2020 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 OF CIT(A) -17, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED O N THE GROUND THAT PENALTY OF RS.1,80,000/- IMPOSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS BAD IN LAW, AS STATED IN GROUND NO. 1. THE REMAININ G GROUNDS ARE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO. 1. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS REJECTED AND TH E PARTIES WERE DIRECTED TO ARGUE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 2 3. THE LD. AR, RELYING ON THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDE RS, SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LD. SR . DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING ON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM AND THUS, THE PENA LTY IMPOSED IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER LAW AND MAY BE SUSTAINED. THE LD . AR WAS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A HABITUAL DEFAULTE R. IT WAS STATED IN RESPONSE THERETO THAT IT WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS VISITED WITH PENALTY AND IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SUR RENDER WAS MADE ONLY TO BUY PEACE AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN CL OTHES UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. HITESH TEXTILES. IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 19,72,904/-. THE SU BJECT MATTER OF CONTENTION IS THE SURRENDER OF RS.6,00,000/- OUT OF COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.15,00,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO SMT. SAVITA ARORA RS. 4,00,000/- AND NEETI ARORA RS.2,00,000/-. THE ASSES SEE IN TERMS OF SURRENDER DID NOT CONTEST THE ISSUE FURTHER IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STATED PLEA OF ABIDING BY THE STAND THAT THE SURRENDER WAS FOR BUYING PEACE. THE SAID CLAIM WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A HABITUAL DEFAULTER, THE PENALTY IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW, WARRANTS THAT IT SHOULD BE QUASHED. ACCORDING LY, THE PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ITSELF. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 04/02/2020 AKS