DCIT, UDAIPUR V. Shri Gurpreet Singh Soni, UDAIPUR

ITA 602/JODH/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5289 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.602/JODH/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, 16, MOOMAL TOWER, 3 RD FLOR,SAHELI MARG, UDAIPUR 313001 VS. SHRI. GURPEET SINGH SONI, PROP. GURPEET MINERALS & CHEMICALS, 64- POLO GROUND, UDAIPUR, RAJASTHAN PAN :AGEPS1825R APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING: 11.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), JAIPUR PASSED IN APPEAL NO.564/13-14 DATED 28-10-2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NONE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE COMPLETED ON THE RETURNED INC OME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT HAD B EEN LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE 2 ITA NO.602/JODH/2014 ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132 (4) OF THE A CT AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED FOR TAXATION FILED IN THE RETURN AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SURRENDERED INCOME WAS EARNED IN THE STATEMENT MADE U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY HOLDING THAT THE INC OME OFFERED IN THE RETURN WAS HIGHER THAN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE TAXES ON THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO B E FROM HIS BUSINESS CONCERN WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING , MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF LIME STONE, SOAP STONE AND OTHER MINERAL S. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) DELETING THE PENAL TY WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT SHOWS THAT THREE CONDITIO NS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MADE TO AVOID LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA. THEY BEIN G (I) THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE MADE DECLARATION IN A STATEMENT U/S 132 (4), (II) THE SOURCE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME MUST BE SPECIFIED AND (III) THE TAX SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAID ALONG WITH THE RETURN. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT (A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DECLARATION U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT AND THAT H E HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE 3 ITA NO.602/JODH/2014 ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX AND THE TAXES ON THE SAME H AVE ALSO BEEN PAID AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON THE RETURNED I NCOME ONLY. THERE IS NO ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIB UNAL AT NAGPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF CONCRETE DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT, C(C)- 2 (2) I N ITA NO.381 (NAG) OF 2012 DATED 20-03-2013. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABL E TO DISLODGE ANY OF THE FINDING OF FACTS WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE LEARNED CIT (A) FOR CANCELLATION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAA OF TH E ACT. THIS BEING SO, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS ON RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 11 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - 4 ITA NO.602/JODH/2014 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 11.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 11 .03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 14.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 14.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT NA SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER