Smt. Jyotsnaben Sureshbhai Joshi, Adipur-Kutch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

ITSSA 14/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0989 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2022
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 132; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 69B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) IT(SS)A No. 14/RJT/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Smt. Jyotsnaben Sureshbhai Joshi, Shri Kali Niwas, Maitri Society, Plot No. 69, Sector 3/A, Adipur-Kutch बनाम/ Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Gandhidham (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) PAN: ABMPJ 5804 A Assessee by Shri Mehul Ranpura, AR Revenue by Shri Shramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 06.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 12.10.2022 आदेश/ O R D E R PER MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.11.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Ground of appeal is as under :- “The ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Rajkot has erred in law in confirming levy of penalty of Rs.80,280/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of addition made of Rs.2,36,190/- on account of alleged unexplained investment in immovable property. The penalty confirmed is totally unjustified on facts as also in law and may kindly be deleted.” 3. In the present case, Friends Group was searched under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act” in short] on 15.06.2011. The assessee’s case was also covered in the search action. In response to notice under Section IT(SS)A No. 14/Rjt/2018 Smt. Jyotsnaben Sureshbhai Joshi Vs. ITO AY : 2008-09 [2] 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income for Assessment Year 2008- 09 on 12.11.2013 declaring total income at Rs.23,42,950/-. Assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Act was passed on 13.03.2014 thereby making addition on account of unexplained investment under Section 69B of the Act amounting to Rs.2,36,190/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and the penalty of Rs.80,280/- was imposed on account of inaccurate particulars of income. 4. Being aggrieved by the penalty order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that no incriminating material was found during the search operations in case of Friend Group in relation to assessee’s case. To avoid the litigation, the assessee has not preferred appeal against the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act. As regards penalty, the Ld. AR submitted that while filing the return of income under Section 153A of the Act, the assessee has fully disclosed and there was no inaccurate particulars filed during the course of assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of National Textiles Vs. CIT, (2000) 249 ITR 125. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, order of penalty and order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the penalty was imposed in respect of filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The assessee, at the time of proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, has filed the return of income as at the initial stages the assessee could not file the original return of income IT(SS)A No. 14/Rjt/2018 Smt. Jyotsnaben Sureshbhai Joshi Vs. ITO AY : 2008-09 [3] within the stipulated time. The Assessing Officer has not made out the case that the particulars of income filed during the assessment proceedings were inaccurate or inadequate while making addition under Section 69B of the Act. The element of inaccurate furnishing of particulars of income is not seen in this particular case and, therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act will not sustain. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 12 th October 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 12/10/2022 Bt आदेश े /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant 2. / The Respondent. 3. आ र आ / Concerned CIT 4. आ र आ ) (/ The CIT(A)- 5. ! " ,आ र # र$/DR,ITAT, Rajkot, 6. ! %& फ ई /Guard file. आदेश " र/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY ह ज र (Asstt. Registrar) आ र # र$ ITAT, Rajkot 1. Date of dictation- .... ....07.10.2022............... 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ..........07.10.2022...... Other member ......10.10.2022............... 3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S. - ...10.10.2022............... 4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for Pronouncement ...12.10.2022. 5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk......12.10.2022...... 6. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.................................. 7. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..................... 8. Date of Despatch of the Order