MURARI LAL GUPTA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 613/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1973 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH IH-DS-CALY] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 613/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 MURARI LAL GUPTA, S/O- SH. MAM RAJ GUPTA, GALI NO. 6, DARU KUTTA MOHALLA, ALWAR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACWPG 6365 Q VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SURESH GUPTA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/07/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), ALWAR FOR A.Y. 20 04-05 AGAINST SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR RS. 45,602/- IMPOSED BY THE LD ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ITA 613/JP/2014_ MURARI LAL GUPTA VS ITO 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 46,240/- BESIDES THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,43,982/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO RS. 4,800/- AND TREATED RS. 2,39,182/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED AT AN INCOME OF RS. 3,64,032/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 51,263/- FOR INTEREST CHARGEABLE AND RS. 73,587/- FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRA WALS. THE LD CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST CHARGEA BLE AND REDUCED THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL ADDITION TO RS. 50,000/- AND EST IMATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 93,982/-, THUS REDUCED I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TO RS. 1.5 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE BY A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK THE VIEWS THAT SINCE THE L D CIT(A) HELD THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 93,982/- AND INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AT RS. 1.5 LACS, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR CUT CASE OF CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME ON WHICH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY AT RS. 45,602/- BEING 100% OF T HE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD SUSTAINED THE PENALTY. ITA 613/JP/2014_ MURARI LAL GUPTA VS ITO 3 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTH ORITIES BELOW. I NOTED THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 2,43,982/- AND AFTER THE LD CIT(A) THE AGRICULT URAL INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AT RS. 93,983/- AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.5 LACS WAS TREATED BY THE REVENUE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED S OURCES. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME ON THE BASIS OF THE REVENUE RECORD, HE SUBMITTED KHASRA GIRDAWARI FO R THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SHOWN CROP WHICH HE HAS CULTIVATED ON THE SAID LAND. IT IS NOT DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING THE L AND. THE ESTIMATION IS ALWAYS AN ESTIMATION, IT CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF ACTUAL ITY. THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE REVENUE IN MY OPINION IS ALSO NOT BASED ON A CTUALITY. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PARTICULARS BUT S THE PARTICULARS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE I CAN SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE NOT ACCEPT ED THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN MY OPINION, CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE A FALSE EXPLANATION AND ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION UNDER EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ITA 613/JP/2014_ MURARI LAL GUPTA VS ITO 4 ONUS GET SHIFTED ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. NO COGENT MATE RIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE BY THE REVENUE. EVEN THOUGH TH E LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, I THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,602/-. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/11/2015 SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 03 RD NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SH. MURARI LAL GUPTA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(3), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 613/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR