SHIV HARI M. HALAN, MUMBAI V. I.T.O.13(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 6942/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3615 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJN EESH K ARVIND
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 6942/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) SHIV HARI M. HALAN, 20, BHATIA NIWAS, 233/235 SAMUEL STREET, MUMBAI 400 003 APPELLANT VS. ITO, 13(2)(3), 425 AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400020 RESPONDENT PAN: AABPH 4085P /BY APPELLANT :SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT: SHRI RAJNEESH K. ARVIND, D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-24, MUMBAI, DA TED 03.08.2012 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.6942/MUM/12 A.Y. 06-07 [SHIV HARI M. HALAN] PAGE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) LEVYIN G A PENALTY OF RS.2,0 1,623/- IS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,01 ,623/- U/S . 271 (1)(C) OF THE I .T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A) ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.2,0L,623/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INC OME. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AGRICULTURAL HOLDING AND THE ONLY DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME THERE OF. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH ACCORDIN G TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WAS NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED. THERE IS SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE TH INGS. PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC ON THE BASIS OF QUANTUM AD DITION. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF HIS UNDISPUTED AGRICULTURAL HOLDING WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FULLY ACCEP TED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEVIE D PENALTY OF RS.2,01,623/- U/S.271(1(C) WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT(A). IN SOME SUBSTANCE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR NOT A CCEPTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE SO ASSESSEE DECLARED CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOTHING BUT ADDITION BY WAY OF ESTIMATION. THE ESTIMATED A DDITION ON ITA NO.6942/MUM/12 A.Y. 06-07 [SHIV HARI M. HALAN] PAGE 3 ACCOUNT OF DENIAL OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, OUT OF UN DISPUTED AGRICULTURAL HOLDING, CANNOT BE SOUND BASIS FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). SO, TAKING ALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES INTO CONSIDERATION, PENALTY IN QUESTION IS DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 23 RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 23/08/2016 TRUE COPY PRABHAT KESARWANI / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. )- / CIT (A) 5. -./ 00'(, '(, %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , / %, '(, %&