CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI, Kota V. ITO, Kota

ITA 687/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99412 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• 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. 687/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI, PROP.- M/S KAVITA AGENCIES, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADEPT 8047 C VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (ADJ. APPLICATION REJECTED) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/11/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/07/2014 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), KOTA FOR A.Y. 20 09-10, BY WHICH THE LD CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME ITA 687/JP/2014_ CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI VS ITO 2 TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR RS. 31,275/- O UT OF RS. 52,275/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, I, THER EFORE, DECIDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LD DR. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD DR AND CAREFULLY CONSI DERED THE SAME ALONGWITH ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW, I NOT ED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 52,275/- ON THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYON D DOUBT THE CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, I HOLD THE ASSESSEE IS DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 271 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 AND IMPOSE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS . 52,275/- WHICH IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER:- ASSESSED INCOME RS. 4,78,760/- TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME RS. 52,275/- RETURN INCOME RS. 1,05,380/- TAX ON RETURN INCOME RS. NIL. MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 100% RS. 52,275/- MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE @ 300% RS. 157825/- PENALTY IMPOSED RS. 52,275/-. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD REDUCED THE PENALTY AT RS. 31,275/-. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE ITA 687/JP/2014_ CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI VS ITO 3 EXPLICIT CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN B E IMPOSED BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER IF DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALE D PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF SU CH INCOME. THUS FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY, THERE MUST BE A SPECIFIC CHARG E EITHER OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THAT OF THE LD CIT(A), IT IS APPARENT THA T NO SPECIFIC CHARGE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR WHICH DEFAULT THE PENALT Y HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCO ME IS DIFFERENT FROM FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. UNTIL AND UNL ESS, THERE IS SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT N O PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED MERELY BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COM MITTED DEFAULT U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. MY AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY COV ERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW SORA THIA ENGINEERING CO. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2006] 282 ITR 64 2 (GUJ) IN WHICH THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT I T IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STATE WHETHER THE PENALTY WA S BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSE E FOR WHETHER IN AN ITA 687/JP/2014_ CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI VS ITO 4 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS NO SUCH CHARGE HAS BEEN MA DE IN THE PENALTY ORDER. I, ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/11/2015. SD/- IH-DS-CALY (P.K. BANSAL) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 05 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SH. CHANDRESH TEKCHANDANI, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(1), KOTA. 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. 687/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR