PRATIMA C. SINGH L.H OF LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR S. SINGH, MUMBAI V. ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6045/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3415 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C , MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 6045/MUM/2013 : (A.Y : 2006 - 07 ) SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH, L/H OF LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR S. SINGH 103 - A, SHIVAM CHS LTD., J.P. ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI 400 058. PAN : BCLPS6172F VS. ITO - 20(1)(2), MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : DR. S. PANDIAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 21 / 03 /201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 / 03 /201 6 O R D E R PER SANJAY GARG , JUDICIAL M EMBER : THE PRESENT IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE, LATE SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S. SINGH THROUGH HIS WIFE, SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) DT. 31.5.2013 . THE ASSESSEE (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR) , IN THIS CASE , HAS AGI T ATED CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. NONE HAS COME PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 60 DAYS. ALONGWITH THE APPEAL MEMO, ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHEREIN THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT WELL AND WAS UNDER THE CARE OF HER SISTER AND WAS OUT 2 SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH ITA NO. 6045/MUM/2013 OF MUMBAI AND AS SUCH, SHE COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE SHORTNESS OF THE DELAY PERIOD, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEED TO HEAR THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR. 2. THE LD. DR, AT THE OUTSET, HAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE WAS PASSED U /S. 144 OF THE ACT ON 19.12.2008. HE HAS FURTHER BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE, VIZ., SHRI CHANDRASHEKHAR S. SINGH HAD EXPIRE D ON 25.9.2006 AFTER PROLONGED ILLNESS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED THAT THE WIDOW OF THE ASSESSEE, VIZ., SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS DEPENDENT ON THE ACCOUNTANT EMPLOYED BY HER LATE HUSBAND. SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER STATED BEFORE HIM THAT SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH, BEING A HOUSEWIFE, WAS UNAWARE OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED OR INVESTMENTS MADE BY HER LATE HUSBAND. SHE WAS, THEREFORE, NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS REGARDING INVESTMENT OF RS. 15,00,000/ - . THE AO PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 144 NOT ON ACCOUNT OF THAT HE HAD DISCOVERED ANY WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE, BUT DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE L EGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED DETAILS RELATING TO INVESTMENT OF RS. 15,00,000/ - . IT WAS UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THIS CASE. 3 SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH ITA NO. 6045/MUM/2013 3. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO DEATH OF HER HUSBAND WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS . THERE WAS NO WILFUL DEFAULT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE OR HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE TO FURNISH THE REQUIRED DETAILS DEMANDED BY THE AO. IN SUCH A FACTUAL POSITION, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE WIDOW - CUM - LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY TO THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS THUS NOT SUPPOSED TO KNOW THE DETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY TRANSACTION. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE WAS NO MORE IN THIS WORLD DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW OR PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE AO. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NEITHER THE PRESENT CASE CAN BE HELD TO BE A CASE OF CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME NOR A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THUS, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, AND SAME IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/03/ 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( SANJAY GARG ) JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE : 0 4 / 0 4 / 2016 *SSL* COPY TO : 1) THE APPELLANT 2) THE RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4 SMT. PRATIMA C. SINGH ITA NO. 6045/MUM/2013 4) THE CIT CONCERNED 5) THE D.R, C BENCH, MUMBAI 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T, MUMBAI