M/s. Vijay Lakshmi Printing Works (P) Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6282/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 628220114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA

Judgement Text

1 I.T.A. NO. IN THE INCOME TAX APELALTE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6282/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 VIJAY LAKSHMI PRINTING VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 17(1), WORKS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI 203, KUSHAL BAZAR, 32-33, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI GIR/PAN:AABCV7028F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.11.2015 ORDER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 19, NEW DELHI, DATED 17.07.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE IM POSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A). NONE APPEAR ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING LD. D.R. AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3. I NOTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. HAS IMPOSED PENALTY FOR RS.2,11,197/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BEING 100% O F THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE A.O. MADE AD DITION OF RS.6,68,157/- IN RESPECT OF CREDIT BALANCE OF THE F OLLOWING PARTIES:- 2 I.T.A. NO. NAME OF CREDITOR AMOUNT RS. M/S. UNITED PAPER AG ENCY 1,11,998/ - M/S. KARAN PAPER MART 180/ - M/S. GOKUL ENTERPRISE 5,00,914/- M/S. J. N. ARORA CO. PVT. LTD 55,065/- TOTAL 6,68,157/- 4. OUT OF THESE PARTIES, ONE OF THE PARTIES M/S. GO KUL ENTERPRISES CONFIRMED THE BALANCE BUT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION AS ACCORDING TO HIM ITR/PAN WAS MISSING. SO FAR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT M/S. GOKUL ENTERPRISES IS THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND, THER EFORE, HE FILED THE COPY OF PAN OF THE PROPRIETOR. THE COPY OF THE SAME WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE ME WHICH CONTAINED PAN:AGZPM1198G. SIMILARL Y, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO PART IES ALONG WITH THEIR PAN BUT THE A.O. NOTED DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE AO AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSED WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CI T(A). 5. PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT AUTOMATIC. PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED IN EACH AND EVERY CASE WHERE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND SUSTAINED. THE AO IMPOSED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 271(12)(C). PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED BY THE AO IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE MUST BE SPECIFIC DEFAULT COMMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE, THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN E XPLANATION (1) WILL APPLY AND THE ONUS WILL BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMI T THE EXPLANATION WHILE IN THE CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME AS PER EXPLANATION (1), DOES NOT APPLY, THE ONUS WILL BE ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, I NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED EXPLANATION WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AS IS APPARENT FROM THE C OPY OF ACCOUNTS OF 3 I.T.A. NO. THESE PARTIES FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK. THESE PARTIES ARE I.T.PAYEES IN EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN REGULAR DEALING WITH THESE PARTIES. THERE MAY BE A NUMBER OF REASONS FO R DIFFERENCE IN THE RECONCILIATION BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULAR OF INCOME. 6. ULTIMATELY, I NOTED THAT THE A.O. HAS IMPOSED TH E PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TH E AO HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT THAT WHAT INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SUM OF RS.5,00,914/- IS CONCERNED OUT OF RS .6,68,157/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED, THE SAID SUM HAS DULY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES CONCERNED AND IT APPEARS T HAT THE AO IGNORED THE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ED, THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL AND THE PROPRIETORS HIP CONCERN IS NOT APPARENTLY ASSESSED. UNDER THESE FACTS, SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS ONUS, I DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH NOV., 2015. SD./- (P.K. BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 10.11. 2015 SP. COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A), NEW DELHI 5. THE DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI)