Smt. R.Jansi Rani, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 753/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3916 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R DURAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 752 & 753/MDS/2012 / // / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-6 SMT. R. JANSI RANI, C/O. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE, NEW NO.14,OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5, 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI 600 020. PAN : ABVPJ3973D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE III, MADURAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( !' / RESPONDENT) # / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE !' # / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, SR.AR # / DATE OF HEARING : 22.12.2016 # / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I I (I/C), MADURAI DATED 20.01.2012 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA RS 2004-05 & 2005-06. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATI ON IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING O F THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NO. 752 & 753/MDS/2012 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF 1,25,000/- FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF M/S . SUSEE CARS & TRUCKS (P) LTD., AND M/S. SUSEE MOTORS. THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04.06. 2006. THE ASSESSEE INFACT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 12.10.2004 DISCLOSING A TAXABLE INCOME O F 56,630/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF 90,110/-. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 153A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DISCLOSIN G THE VERY SAME INCOME WHICH WAS ADMITTED IN THE EARLIER RETURN ON 12.10.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER BY AN ORDER DATED 18. 12.2004 COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME AT 3,13,754/- WHICH INCLUDES UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF 2,57,127/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE INFACT INVESTED IN SHARES / SECURITIES TO THE EXTENT OF 2,49,455/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES / SECURITIE S AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR DISCLOSING THE INVESTMENT. WHEN THERE IS NO PROVI SION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY PART OF THE INCOME. THE FACT THAT FORM15H WAS FILE D SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS A CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI R. DURAI PANDIAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES AND SECURITIES WHILE FILI NG RETURN OF 3 I.T.A. NO. 752 & 753/MDS/2012 INCOME IN RESPONSE TO ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PART OF INCOME. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY FOUND THAT THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOSED FOR TAXATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED FORM 15H BEFORE THE RELEVANT AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE THE IN VESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHARES AND SECURITIES WAS WITHI N THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. HAD THE INTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE WAS TO WITHHOLD THE INFORMATION FROM THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE FILED FORM 15H BEFORE THE C ONCERNED AUTHORITIES. HAVING FILED THE FORM 15H BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, THE OMISSION TO DECLARE THE INCOME FROM SUCH INVESTMENT IS ONLY THE INADVERTENT ERROR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. MO REOVER, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED ONLY 1,25,000/- FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HAVING FOUND THAT THE OMISSION TO INCLUDE T HE INCOME FROM SUCH SECURITIES / SHARES IS ONLY INADVERTENT ERROR AND NO COLUMN WAS PROVIDED BY THE CBDT FOR DISCLOSING THE INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES AND DEBENTURES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERABL E OPINION THAT LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NO T JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. 4 I.T.A. NO. 752 & 753/MDS/2012 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( ) /CIT(A) 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.