Mr. Hidayatulla B. Shaikh, Pune V. Dy. CIT,Circle 2, Pune

ITA 858/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3112 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 21-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA MURARI
• Assessee Lawyers: K SHRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO. 858 & 859/ PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR1998-99 & 1999 -00) HIDAYATULLA B. SHAIKH 1027, NEW NANA PETH PUNE-411002 PAN NO. ALRPS2288N .... APPELLANT VS. D.C.I.T CIRCLE-2 PUNE . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 860 & 861/ PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR1998-99 & 1999 -00) SOHAIL H. SHAIKH 1027, NEW NANA PETH PUNE-411002 PAN NO. ACEPS2291R .... APPELLANT VS. D.C.I.T CIRCLE-2 PUNE . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 862 & 863/ PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR1998-99 & 1999 -00) IQBAL B. SHAIKH 1027, NEW NANA PETH PUNE-411002 PAN NO. ACEPS2290Q .... APPELLANT VS. D.C.I.T CIRCLE-2 PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SHRINIVASAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KRISHNA MURARI ITA NO. 858 TO 863/PN/09 A.Y1998-99 TO 1999-00 PAGE 2 OF 3 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE THE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THREE DIFFERENT AS SESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, PUNE IDENTICALLY DATED 28-05-2009 FOR A.Y 1998-99 & 1999-00. AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, THEREF ORE, THEY ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND THEY ARE DISPOSED IN THE COMPOSITE ORDER. THE GROUNDS FROM ONE OF THE APPEALS ARE REPRODUCED HERE FOR SAMPLE AND THEY READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 12.05.2009 MADE DURING TH E COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE D EMONSTRATED THE SIMILARITY OF THE GROUNDS AS WELL AS THE ISSUE. FURTHER LD. COUNS EL ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE SIMILARITY OF FACTS UNDER WHICH THE PENALTY U/S. 271( 1)(C) WAS INITIATED. BRIEFLY, LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED INTEREST EXPENDITURE ON THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AGAINST THE AGAINST THE REMUNERATION RECEIVED FROM THE FIRM. THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY T HE A.O AND THE CIT(A). ON THIS FACT, LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A DEFAULTER SO FAR AS THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION IS CONCERNED. RETURN CONTAINS THE RELEVANT INFORMATIO N. FURTHER, ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATED THE EXISTENCE OF DEBATIBILITY OF THE ISSUE. FURTHER, ALSO LD. AR STATED MERELY MAKING A CLAIM, WHICH MAY BE WRONG CLAIM, AND DOES NOT ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. 3. IN THIS REGARD LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE SUPREME C OURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 15 8(SC). ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORIT IES AND STATED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDE RS OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THE SIX APPEALS AND NOTICED THE SIMILARITY OF FACTS AND THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US AND THEREFORE WE PROCEED TO PASS THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER CON SIDERING THE COMMONALITIES MENTIONED ABOVE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES IS A LSO COMMON. SO IT IS FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED RELEVANT PARTICULARS IN TH E RETURN. REGARDING THE DEBATABLE NATURE OF THE ISSUE, IT IS TRUE THAT THE A. O HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW, MAY BE CORRECT OR INCORRECT VIEW AS NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL. CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 858 TO 863/PN/09 A.Y1998-99 TO 1999-00 PAGE 3 OF 3 MAY BE WRONG. BUT, THIS DOES NOT ATTRACT LEVY OF PEN ALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME CURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.. (SUPRA) RELEVANT PART OF THE HELD PORTION IS TYPED AS U NDER:- WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FA LSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MER E MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOU NT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SETTLED POSITION OF THE ISS UE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN ALL THESE CASES HAVE TO B E REVERSED. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE SIX APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2010 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE 3. CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. CIT-II, PUNE 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE