The ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Dilipkumar N.Vyas, Mehsana

ITSSA 576/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0658 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Section: 153A; 132; 15; 139

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 576/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD DILIPKUMAR N. VYAS, 19, SURAMYA SOCIETY, OPP.RANGOLI HOTEL, B/H.RAJPATH HOTEL, MEHSANA PAN: AAMPV 4699 N / // / (APPELLANT) / // / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR. DR ASSESSEE(S) BY : NONE !'# $ %& !'# $ %& !'# $ %& !'# $ %& / DATE OF HEARING : 11/05/2015 '( $ %& / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/05/2015 )* )* )* )*/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 18.08.2011 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8. 2. THE ONLY GROUND IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RE ADS AS UNDER:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY CANCELLING CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF RS.7,62,938/- ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25,00,000/-. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AR E THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.7,85,4 73/- ON THE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT INCOME OF RS.25,66,905/-. THIS INCOME WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED U/S 153A. THE IT(SS)A NOS.576/AHD/2011 ACIT V. DILIPKUMAR N. VYAS AY: 2007-08 2 CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE PENALTY ON RS.66,905/- AND DE LETED THE PENALTY ON THE SUM OF RS.25,00,000/- ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139. THE RE LEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD READS AS UNDER:- 5. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE PE NALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APP ELLANT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS, BANK FDR, UNSECURED LOANS AND INVESTMENT IN KOTAK SECURITIES LTD. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE SEARCH IN THE CAS E OF THE APPELLANT TOOK PLACE ON 23.10.2007. THE DUE DATE FOR RETURN FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 EXPIRED ON 31.10.2007. IN OTHER WORDS, AS ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN HAD NOT EXPIRED. AFTER T HE DATE OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT ON 16.11.2007 IN WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25 LACS WAS DISCLO SED BY THE APPELLANT. SUBSEQUENTLY IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 15 3A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN ON 10.11.2009 DISCL OSING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25,66,905/-.. 4. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SEARCH U/S 132 TOOK PLACE AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 23.10.2007 . THE DUE DATE O F THE FILING OF THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 EXPIRED ON 31.10.2007 A ND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT ON 16 .11.2007 IN WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS DISCLOSED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE INCOME OF RS.25,00,000/- WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED U/S 139. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A, THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.25,6 6,905/-. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FI LED U/S 139 THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.25,00,000/-, THE SAM E CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SO FAR AS THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 3A IS CONCERNED. THIS FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN F ILED U/S 139 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE INCOME OF RS.25,00,000/- HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREIN HE REDUCED THE PENALTY ON THE IN COME RS.25,00,000/-. IT(SS)A NOS.576/AHD/2011 ACIT V. DILIPKUMAR N. VYAS AY: 2007-08 3 HOWEVER, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT WE HAVE NOT EXPRESSED ANY OPINION, WHETHER IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED U/S 153A AMOUNTING TO RS.66,905/- PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED OR NOT, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE BEFORE US. BEFORE US, THERE IS ONLY REVENUE S APPEAL. NOBODY HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSID ERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE AND PERUSING THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE SUM OF RS.25,00 ,000/- CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SO FAR AS THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 15 3A ARE CONCERNED, BECAUSE THIS SUM WAS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED U/S 139. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH MAY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/05/2015 BIJU T., PS )* $ %+ ,)+% )* $ %+ ,)+% )* $ %+ ,)+% )* $ %+ ,)+%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !-- % '. / CONCERNED CIT 4. '. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. +12 % , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 2 3# / GUARD FILE . )*'! )*'! )*'! )*'! / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 4 44 4/ // /! -5 ! -5 ! -5 ! -5 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD