SATISH CHAND GOYAL, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 620/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1966 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA

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. 620/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SATISH CHAND GOYAL, PROP.- M/S RAJENDRA PRASAAD SATISH CHAND, 25, NEW MANDI, KHERIL, ALWAR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABPPG 3383 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE. 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 22/07/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), ALWAR FOR A.Y. 20 01-02 AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA 620/JP/2014_ SATISH CHAND GOYAL VS ITO 2 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THO UGH NOTICE WAS DULY SENT AND SOUGHT. I, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISP OSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND CAREFULLY CONSI DERED HIS SUBMISSION, I FOUND THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) FOR A SUM OF RS. 69,3 64/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- AT FIRST APPELLATE STAGE THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER NO. 257/08- 09/25.07.2011, HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 21,503/- O ACCOUNT OF NP TRANSFERRED TO HAJARI LAL BABU LAL, R S. 71,317/- ON ACCOUNT OF DOMESTIC EXPENSES, RS. 12,400/- ON AC COUNT OF DHARMADA. THUS THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED ADDITION O F RS. 2,05,220/- ON THE BASIS OF PHOTO COPIES OF INCRIMIN ATING DOCUMENTS WHICH BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE OR CAUSE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, AT THIS STAGE TOO THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ABO VE, REGARDING THE ADDITIONS DOES NOT BELONGS TO THE ASS ESSEE AS THE HAND WRITTEN ON THE PAPERS FOUND WAS NOT OF ASSES SEE AND NO SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND ON THE PAPERS WHICH HAS SENT BY THE INVESTIGATING WING, JAIPUR. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ITA 620/JP/2014_ SATISH CHAND GOYAL VS ITO 3 CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME TO THIS EXTENT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENAL ACTION U /S 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS DISCUSSED AS ABOVE, THE CONC EALMENT COMES TO RS. 2,05,220/-. ACCORDINGLY PENALTY OF RS. 69,364/- IS IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, WORKING OF WHICH IS AS UNDER:- TOTAL INCOME AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO ITATS ORDER : R S. 3,28,670 DATED 06/09/2011 TAX ON ABOVE RS. 79,221/- TAX ON RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 1,23,460/- RS. 9857 EVADED TAX ON CONCEALED INCOME AS DISCUSSED RS. 69 364/- ABOVE. MINIMUM PENALTY LIABLE RS. 69364/- MAXIMUM PENALTY LIABLE 3 TIMES OF EVADED TAX I.E. RS. 208092/- PENALTY IMPOSED RS. 69,364/- BEING MINIMUM ONLY. ISSUE NECESSARY FORMS. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 69,364/- BY FINDING THE INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT APPEARS THAT HE HAS IMPOSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALM ENT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE FOR RS. 1,21,503/- ON ACCOUNT OF NET PROFIT, RS. 71,317/- ON ACCOUNT OF DOMESTIC EXPENSES, RS. 12,400 ON ACCOUNT OF DHARMADA. ITA 620/JP/2014_ SATISH CHAND GOYAL VS ITO 4 THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ME RELY ON THE BASIS OF SOME PAPER SENT BY THE INVESTIGATING WING, JAIPU R. THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED THAT THESE PAPERS ARE IN HIS HANDWRITING OR T HE INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE PAPER BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONS ARE JUST BASED ON THE INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATING WING, JAIPUR . EVEN ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 71,317/- AND THAT OF THE DHARMADA AT RS. 12,400/- ARE JUST B ASED ON ESTIMATE WHILE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,21,503/- IS ALSO BASED O N THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE PR OFIT TO HAZARI LAL BABU LAL BUT I DO NOT FIND IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDIT ION, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY, THE ADDITION IS MADE PRESUMI NG THAT THE BOOKS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS EXPLICIT CLEAR T HAT PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THA T ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD WORK OUT THE SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR WHICH HE IS IMPOSING THE PENALTY. THE EXPL ANATION (1) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASE WHERE THERE IS A CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS NOT APP LICABLE WHERE THERE IS ITA 620/JP/2014_ SATISH CHAND GOYAL VS ITO 5 FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOT H THE CHARGES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IN THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF P ARTICULARS, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DERIVED BY HIM. IN THE CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THE PARTICULARS MUST HAVE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THOSE PARTICULARS ARE NOT CORRECT AND ARE INACCURATE. 6. IN THIS CASE, I NOTED THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT S URE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FIL ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ONE TIME STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BU T THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THAT CHARGE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WHEN THE IN COME IS ADDED MERELY ON ESTIMATE I CANNOT SAY THAT THERE IS A CONCEALMEN T OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE ESTIMATE IS ALWAYS AN ESTIMATE IT MAY VARY TO ANY EXTENT, IT CANNOT TA KE THE SHAPE OF ACTUALITY. ALL THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE IN THIS CASE ARE JUST BASED ON ESTIMATE OR PRESUMPTION. NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PRO VE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, I AM OF ITA 620/JP/2014_ SATISH CHAND GOYAL VS ITO 6 THE VIEW THAT INGREDIENTS AS STIPULATED U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT ARE NOT COMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHERE T HE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE SUSTAINED. I ACCORDINGLY, DELE TE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 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. SATISH CHAND GOYAL, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(2), 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. 620/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR