Arun Kumar Gupta, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax-4, Kanpur

ITA 897/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 89723714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.897/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 SHRI ARUN KUMAR GUPTA, 15/295 A, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR 208001. PAN:AAQPG9636E VS. ACIT 4, KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 13/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 8 /09/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT (A) II KANPUR, DATED 30.09.2014 FOR A.Y. 2010 11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FIVE GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING OF PENALTY OF RS. 52,940/ - IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271 (1) (C) OF I T ACT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. SAYS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR THIS ALLEGATION BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED FOR THIS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWIN G JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THAT IF THE ALLEGATION REGARDING DEFAULT OF THE 2 ASSESSEE SUCH AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS NOT SPECIFIC, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED.: - A) CIT VS. MANU ENGINEERING, 122 ITR 306 (GUJARAT) B) NEW SORATHIA ENGG. CO. VS. CIT, 282 ITR 642 (GUJ). 4. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OTHERWISE ALSO, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE FOR WHICH THE PERQUISITE WAS INADVERTENTLY OM ITTED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME WHEN RETURN WAS FILED BUT IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 142 (1) DATED 05.10.2012, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY FILED REVISED COMPUTATION AFTER INCLUDING THIS PERQUISITE INCOME OF RS. 114,214/ - AND THEREFORE, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR THIS BONAFIDE MISTAKE RECTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT, 348 ITR 306. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT IN NOTICE DATED 05.10.2012 U/S 142 (1), THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH THE BRIEF DETAILS OF INCOME EARNING ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 22.10.2012 AND FURNISHED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME. FROM THESE OBSERVATIONS I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT COMES OUT THAT THE REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE BY THE A.O. U/S 142 (1) BUT BEFORE ANY FINDING OF THE A.O. THAT SUCH INCOME WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE EXAMINE THE APP LICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT CITED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND VERACITY OF THIS CONTENTION THAT REVISED COMPUTATION WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY. IN 3 THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADD PROVISION OF GRATUITY IN THE TOT AL INCOME AND UNDER THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT THAT IT AS A BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR AND IT IS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A REPUTED FIRM AND HAD GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT AND THE PRESENT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT ANY EXPERTISE IN TAX MATTERS. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS JUDGMENT, WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BONAFIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR AND IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION ABOUT THE MERIT OF THE PENALTY IN PARA 5 ABOVE, THE TECHNIC AL ASPECT NOTED IN PARA 3 ABOVE HAS BECOME ACADEMIC AND HENCE, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR ON THIS ASPECT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 8 /09/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR