Shri Rajiv Jain, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 6/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R B MEENA
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 234B; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. S UDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA , JM IT(SS)A NO. 06 /DEL/2014 : BLOCK PERIOD : 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 SHRI RAJIV JAIN, D - 6, KALINDI COLONY, NEW DELHI - 110065 VS ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 39(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. A AKPJ6150A ASSESSEE BY : MS. DEEPASHREE RAO, CA REVENUE BY : SH. R. B . MEENA , CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 08 .0 2 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : 22 .03 .201 6 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02.12.2013 OF LD. CIT(A) - X II , NEW DELHI. 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE LEVY OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.10,55,535/ - U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT A NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.12.2012 TO FURNISH BLOCK RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 23.12.2002. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE IT(SS) A NO. 06 /DE L/2014 RAJIV JAIN 2 FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 07.04.2003 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.5,49,000/ - FOR THE B LOCK PERIOD ASSESSME NT YEAR 199 6 - 97 TO 2002 - 03. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. IN THE MEAN TIME, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 28.07.2004 U /S 245D(1) OF THE ACT , T HE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.9,03,000/ - . THEREAFTER A NOTICE U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO, PROPOSING TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE APPAR ENT FROM THE RECORD WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT AND THAT NO INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT WAS CHARGEABLE. THE AO DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RECTIFIED THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE ACT BY CHARGING THE INTEREST OF RS .10,55,535/ - U/S 234B OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO T HE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALSO DID NOT ALLOW ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET STATE D THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2015 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SH. AKHIL GAIN IN IT(SS)A NO. IT(SS) A NO. 06 /DE L/2014 RAJIV JAIN 3 26/DEL/2013 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03 (COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD). 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY B EEN ADJUDICATED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE - 39(1), NEW DELHI VS SH. AKHIL JAIN WHEREIN VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2015, THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 9 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER CHAPTER XIV - B OF THE ACT U/S 158BC/245D (4) OF THE ACT. BY VIRTUE OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BF OF THE ACT, NO INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS CHARGEABLE ON TH E AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BF FOR READY REFERENCE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: NO INTEREST UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A, 234B OR 234C OR PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 OR SEC TION 271A OR SECTION 271B SHALL BE LEVIED OR IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. IT(SS) A NO. 06 /DE L/2014 RAJIV JAIN 4 WHEN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE CASES OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPT ER XIV - B OF THE ACT, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 158BF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRONGLY CHARGED INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. THE NON - LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT, IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 04.05.2011, CANNOT BE STATED TO BE A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD WARRANTING RECTIFICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. SO, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 12.06.2015 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SH. AKHIL JAIN IN IT(SS)A NO. 26/DEL/2013 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1996 - 97 TO 2002 - 03, THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 8 . IN THE RESULT, A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 /03 / 2016 ) SD/ - SD/ - ( SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) ( N. K. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22 /03 /2016 *SUBODH* COPY FORWAR DED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR