SMT.GEETANJALI MAHAJAN, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (5), JALANDHAR

ITA 97/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Smt Geetanjali Mahajan, who filed an appeal against the penalty imposed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jalandhar, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The penalty was levied following the declaration of additional income in a return filed under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, after a notice was issued. The assessee declared an additional income of Rs. 2,76,010 and paid the corresponding tax. The Tribunal found that the additional income was declared in good faith and no new concealed income was discovered during the assessment. Thus, following the precedent of the Jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal quashed the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114850 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2023
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Rajiv Garg (2009) 313 ITR 256(P & H)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 148; 271(1)(c); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 97/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt Geetanjali Mahajan, 80-Banda Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar [PAN:-AJAPM0160C] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward. 1(5) Jalandhar (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Vikas Bhagat, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [in brevity CIT(A)], orders passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in brevity the Act), for assessment year 2013-14. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jalandhar (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee filed return u/s.139(1) of the Act and declared total income of Rs.1,55,660/- against which refund amount of Rs.25.360/- had been claimed. The notice u/s. 148 was issued and assessee filed a return in pursuance of this notice u/s. 148 and declared total income amount to Rs.4,31,670/-. The assessee has declared an additional income of Rs. 2,76,010/- in the return, filed u/s. 148. The assessment was completed. The penalty proceedings was initiated against the excess income amount of Rs.2,76,010/-, declared in return in pursuance of notice u/s. 148 and addition made during the assessment amount to Rs.1294/-. The total penalty was levied amount to Rs.25,025/- which is @100% of the concealed tax. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The ld. AR for assessee filed written submission, which was kept on the record. The ld. AR argued that the excess income was declared during filing of return u/s. 148. The ld. AR respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Rajiv Garg (2009) 313 ITR 256(P & H). Relevant paragraph is extracted as below: “Penalty under s. 271(1)(c)- Concealment- Surrender of additional income in return filed pursuant to notice under s. 14-Return was accompanied by a note wherein the assessee stated that he has surrendered the entire amount of sale proceeds of shares to buy peace of mind and to avoid hazards of litigation and also to save himself from any penal action- Aforesaid explanation was neither rejected nor it was held to be mala fide- Tribunal has recorded a pure finding of the fact that the Revenue has not placed any material or evidence on record to discharge its burden of proving concealment- It has further held that the additional income was offered by the Assessee in god faith and to buy peace- Penalty under s. 271(1)(c) rightly deleted Assessee having surrendered additional income along with an explanation in the revised return filed in pursuance of notice under s. 148, and the assessing authority having not taken, any objection that the assessee’s explanation was not bona fide under s. 271(1)(c) is not leviable.” 4. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 5. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the record. During the hearing the ld. AR fully relied on the order of Jurisdictional High Court. Excess income was declared in the return filed u/s. 148 of the Act. The assessee paid the tax accordingly, on the basis of the additional income. No new conceal income was found by the ld AO during assessment. We respectfully relied on the order of Jurisdictional High Court in case of Rajiv Garg, supra. Accordingly, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) amount to Rs.25,050/- is quashed. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA no. 97/ASR/2023 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.06.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order