M/s Ram Lal Durga Dass, Shimla V. ITO, Shimla

ITA 997/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 99721514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL MOHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 997/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 M/S RAM LAL DURGA DASS, V ITO,WARD-1, 65, LOWER BAZAR, SHIMLA. SHIMLA. PAN: AABFR-5829B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VISHAL MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 20.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.08.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.243696/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND FACTS. 3. LD. 'AR' CONTENDED, BY NARRATING THE FACTS THAT TWO SET OF TRADING ACCOUNTS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO, AS IS EVIDENT 2 FROM PARA 14 OF THE ITAT ORDER IN ITA NO.1110/CHD/2 005, ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98, ORDER DATED 28.03.2007. T HE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.2,43,696/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT AND IN VIEW OF SUCH DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK AND TRADING RESULTS, AS PER SALE TAX RETURNS. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE LD. 'AR' THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEE'S O WN CASE, AS REFERRED TO EARLIER, HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS .5,10,513/- AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.99,111/- BY TREATING THE SAME AS INFLATION OF PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, THE VERY BASIS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CEASES TO EXIST. LD. 'AR' REFERRED TO PAGE NO.2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHEREIN HIS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DELETION MADE BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A), UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, IN THE MATTER OF LEVY OF PENALT Y. 4. LD. 'DR' CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS AN ESTIMATE OF CONCEALED INCOME AND THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE SAME T O THE EXTENT OF RS.99,111/-. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY MA Y BE LEVIED ON SUCH AMOUNT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND TH AT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF DELETION OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION, AS THE VERY BASIS OF LEVY OF SUCH PENALTY CEASES TO EXIST. HOWEVER, IT IS A CAS E WHERE THE ESTIMATION OF CONCEALED INCOME HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF VARIATION IN THE TWO SET OF TRADING ACCOUN TS, DETECTED BY THE AO. THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS UPHELD THE ESTIMATION OF CONCEALED INCOME TO TH E TUNE 3 OF RS.99,111/-. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO FILE ANY EXPLANATION TO THE FACTUM OF CONCLUDED EST IMATE OF CONCEALED INCOME AT RS.;99,111/-. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE MATTER OF LEVY OF PENALTY IS UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF CONCEALED INCOME AT RS.99,111/- AND THE B ALANCE CONCEALED INCOME, ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED BUT Q UANTUM WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL, IS DELETED. IN NUT-SH ELL, THE PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF CONCEALED INCOME, IN THE F ORM OF INFLATION OF PURCHASES, AMOUNTING TO RS.99,111/- ST ANDS UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DEC.,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH DEC.,2011. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH