AVIJIT SINGH, Ajmer V. ACIT, Ajmer

ITA 700/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2089 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 29-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH CIT DHK
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Wrong claim; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 263; 63

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 700/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 AVIJIT SINGH, BADNORE HOUSE, CIVIL LINES, AJMER. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AOFPS 3071 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PORWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/05/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/05/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER FOR THE A .Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND, WHICH IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 94,160/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT). 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED, ITA 700/JP/2016_ AVIJIT SINGH VS ACIT 2 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 2 63 OF THE ACT. IN PURSUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE AS SESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDE R DATED 24/12/2012. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 30/7/2014. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CON SIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT INADVERTENTLY, THE ASSE SSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN TREATED HIMSELF AS THE OWNER ON THE BASIS OF ALLOTMENT LETTER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLO WANCE OF INDEXATION BENEFIT OF RS. 2,77,024/- CLAIMED ON SALE OF APARTM ENT. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT, IT WAS MERE A BONAFIDE MISTAKE. HE, IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC). HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS I N A PRINTED FORM, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE. UNDER THESE FACTS, THE PENAL TY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND MAY BE DELETED. ITA 700/JP/2016_ AVIJIT SINGH VS ACIT 3 5. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD SR. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGAR D TO THE PROPOSITION THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND QUANTUM PROCEEDING S ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SATISFY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. F URTHER AS PER SECTION 273(B) OF THE ACT, NO PENALTY U/S 271 SHALL BE IMPO SABLE ON THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY FAILURE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISION I F HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EVERY FACT WAS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS ONLY WRONG CLAIM OF INDEXAT ION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLOTMENT LETT ER UNDER THE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. UNDE R THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THER E WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CLAIMING SUCH WRONG CLAIM. THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE OF PENALTY, SAME SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN IMPOSED. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. ITA 700/JP/2016_ AVIJIT SINGH VS ACIT 4 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/05/2017. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN DQY HKKJR (BHAGCHAND) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 19 TH MAY, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI AVIJIT SINGH, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 700/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR