SMT. HARPREET KAUR, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4), JALANDHAR

ITA 709/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7102 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT MOHAN JINDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANDIP VIJH
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(1); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.709/ASR./2017 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. HARPREET KAUR, C/O V.P. VIJH & CO. CA, K.K. TOWER, 1 ST & 2 ND FLOOR, OPP. CIRCUIT HOUSE, JALANDHAR VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AUSPK9124B ASSESSEE BY : SH. SANDIP VIJH, CA REVENUE BY : SH. LALIT MOHAN JINDAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.01.2019 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2017 OF LD. CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY OF RS.1,85,710/- LEVIED BY TH E AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE E-FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2013 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.17,03,560/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF TH E ACT. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF ITA NO. 709/ASR./2017 HARPREET KAU R 2 RS.9,01,509/- AND RS.4,003/- ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST RESPECTIVELY. THE AO ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,85,710/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO SUSTAINED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,85,710/- L EVIED BY THE AO. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT MENTION ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWA RDS PAGE NO. 11 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOLDER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT NOTICES DATED 01.06.2016 AND 10.06.2016 NOTHING WAS MENTION ED ABOUT THE CHARGE ON WHICH THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS TO B E LEVIED. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT, CC-I, FARIDABAD IN ITA NO. 4325/DE L/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, ORDER DATED 22.11.2017. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED T HE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THA T AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT DELH I BENCH A, NEW DELHI IN ITA NO. 709/ASR./2017 HARPREET KAU R 3 THE CASE OF AMAN MEHTANI VS DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN ON E OF US (VICE PRESIDENT) IS A CO-SIGNATORY IN THE SAID ORDER DATED 22.11.201 7, IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ALL THE DETAILS DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE NOTICE DATED 28.12 .2011 PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, IT CAN B E SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LI ABLE FOR PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EM ERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON BLE APEX COURT: '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPE CIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEE DINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDG MENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION , NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL F OR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDIN GLY DISMISSED. 8. SINCE, THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFE RRED TO ORDER DATED 22.11.2017, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO A ND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. ITA NO. 709/ASR./2017 HARPREET KAU R 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17/01/2019) SD/- SD/- (RAVISH SOOD) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER V ICE PRESIDENT DATED: 17/01/2019 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR