Gnyandeep Kantipudi, New Delhi V. ACIT, Circle-54(1), New Delhi

ITA 6812/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2935 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K JIWANI
• Keywords: Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-2015 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, B-112, SHIVALIK NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI- 110 017. PAN AAQPK7333J VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 54(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : SHRI V.K. JIWANI, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 .03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .03.2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI, DATED 22 ND SEPTEMBER, 2017, FOR THE A.Y. 2014-2015, CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O. MADE ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57 OF RS.16 ,60,121/-. 2 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. THE ADDITION WAS MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE DETAILS OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AGAINST THE S AME. VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH MAY, 2016, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED DETAILS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT WAS OBSERVED TH AT ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THE INCOME OF RS.21,81,654/- AS ASSURED RETURN AND CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS.16,60,121/-. THE ASSURED RET URN OF RS.21,81,654/- IS FROM DLF HOME PRIVATE LIMITED, IM PERIA STRUCTURES LTD., PIYUSH SHELTERS INDIA PVT. LTD., A ND PIYUSH COLONIZERS LTD., HOWEVER, THE EXPENSES OF RS.16,60, 121/- IS AGAINST HOME LOAN TAKEN FROM ING VYSYA BANK. VIDE N OTE SHEET DATED 23.09.2016 AND 06.10.2016, THE ASSESSEE WAS C ONFRONTED AS TO HOW THE EXPENSES OF RS.16,60,121/- HAS ANY DI RECT NEXUS WITH THE INCOME FROM ASSURED RETURN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT AND AS TO WHY THE SAME BE N OT DISALLOWED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS NOT RELATED TO THE EXPENSES SO CLAIMED ABOVE. ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION BUT TO A CCEPT AND AGREED TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE O F THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY VIDE SHOW 3 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. CAUSE NOTICE DATED 2 ND DECEMBER, 2016, TO OFFER THE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NEXUS OF THE EXPENSES WITH THE ASSURE D INCOME. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CONFIRMED THAT IT IS NOT RELATED IN ANY WAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION FOR ADDITION. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE SEPARATELY I NITIATED. THE A.O. IN THE PENALTY ORDER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE ACCEP TED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT RELATION BETWEEN THE INTEREST EX PENSES ON HOME LOAN FROM ING VYSYA AND ASSURED RETURNED INCOM E. THE ASSESSEE WAS REPEATEDLY CONFRONTED THAT THERE IS NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE EXPENSES SO CLAIMED WITH THE INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES. ULTIMATELY, ASSESSEE ADMITTED AND OFFERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION. A.O. NOTED THAT ONLY 2% OF THE RETURN S ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THERE ARE VERY LESS PROBABILITY OF BEING CAUGHT. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF WILLFUL FILING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. THE A.O. RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD ., 327 ITR 151 AND LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT ON THIS ADDITION. 4 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) . THE ASSESSEES WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE REPRODUCED IN TH E APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT EXPE NDITURE WAS SURRENDERED FOR TAXATION BEFORE ANYTHING COULD BE D ETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE SURRE NDERED THE AMOUNT SUO MOTU TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED SURRENDER LETTER DATED 21 ST OCTOBER, 2016. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E BECAUSE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED ALL THE ABOVE FACTS PRIOR T O SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 08 TH MARCH, 2018. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. 4. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D. R. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR I N THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TH EREFORE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THAT EXPENSE S RELATED TO INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES HAVE ANY DIRECT NEXUS WIT H THE EARNING OF SUCH INCOME. THE A.O. FOUND SPECIFIC FAC T AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG CLAIM OF EXPEND ITURE AGAINST THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ANY DIRECT NEXUS WITH THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WI TH INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, CO NFRONTED WITH THE FACT VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 AND 06 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO EXPLANATION BUT TO ACCEPT THE ADDITION PROPOSED BY THE A.O. EVEN THERE AFTER, EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE WERE CALLED FOR BUT ASSESSE E REITERATED THAT IT HAS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER. THEREFORE, C LAIM OF ASSESSEE OF DEDUCTION FOR EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND FAL SE AND BOGUS. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR CASE, WHERE FACT OF FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN DETECTED BY THE A.O. AT ASSES SMENT STAGE 6 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. THAT ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF TH E EXPENDITURE DELIBERATELY. IT IS A COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT ONLY FEW RETURNS ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSES SEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALS O WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE, IT W OULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WOULD STILL NOT LIAB LE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUN ICATION PVT. LTD., (SUPRA), SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE FACTS O F THE CASE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT AND THE SAME IS ACC ORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DELHI, DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2018 VBP/- 7 ITA.NO.6812/DEL./2017 SHRI GNYANDEEP KANTIPUDI, NEW DELHI. COPY TO 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.