Smt Tripta sharma, V. ACWT, Dhanbad

WTA 1/RAN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9577 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHOUDHRY ORAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODDAR
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER W TA NO. 01 - 02 / RAN / 2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2008-09 & 2009-10 SMT. TRIPTA SHARMA, BANEIKALA, JODA, DIST. KEONJHAR, ODISHA-826004 [ PAN NO. AHVPS 5982 R ] V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CIRCLE-II, DHANBAD /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE SHRI S.K. PODDAR, ADVOCATE & SHRI DEVESH PODDAR, ADVOCATE /BY RESPONDENT SHRI CHOUDHRY ORAN, DR /DATE OF HEARING 07-09-2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 09-09-2016 / O R D E R PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO ORDERS BOTH DATED 15.2.2016 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-DH ANBAD (JHARKHAND) RELATING TO A.Y 2008-09 & 2009-10. 2. IN THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHEREBY THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE W EALTH TAX OFFICER (WTO) IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.18(1)( (C) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, 1957 (ACT). WTA NO.01-02/RAN/2016 A.YS. 08-09 & 09-0 SMT. TRIPTA SHARMA VS. ACWT, CIR-II, DHN PAGE 2 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PENALTY U/S.18(1)( C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE WTO ARE AS FOLLO WS: THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE DECLAR ED CERTAIN ITEMS OF JEWELLERY IN AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION UNDER CHAPTER XIX-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED ITS ORDER ON 23.11.2009 ACCEPTING THE DECLARATION OF JEWELLERY. 4. PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION, IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNER OF JEWELLERY WHICH FORMED PA RT OF THE TAXABLE WEALTH OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE ACT. THE DUE DATE FOR FI LING RETURN OF WEALTH FOR AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 WAS 31.7.2008 & 31.7.2009 RESPECT IVELY. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.17 OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT, WHICH ARE PROC EEDINGS FOR ASSESSING NET WEALTH WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, DATED 25.11.20 11. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE FILED RETURN OF WEALTH THAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CASES REFERRED TO EAR LIER. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE NET WEALTH RETURNED WAS ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.16(3) READ WITH SEC.17 OF THE ACT. WH ILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT, THE WTO INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.18(1)(C) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF WEALTH OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF WEALTH. THE WTO ULTIMATE LY IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S.18(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRME D BY THE CIT(A). HENCE THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL. 5. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS T HAT THE WEALTH RETURNED IN THE RETURN OF NET WEALTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE NET WEALTH ASSESSED BY THE WTO WAS ONE AND THE SAME AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTAN CES THERE CANNOT BE ANY ALLEGATION OF CONCEALMENT OF WEALTH OR FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF WEALTH. THE REVENUE HAS HOWEVER PLACED RELIANCE ON EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC.18(1) OF THE ACT TO CONTEND THAT EVEN IN SUCH A CASE, PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS HOWEVER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT SINCE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDE R WAS PASSED ON 23.11.2009 AND AS ON THAT DATE THE DUE DATE FOR FIL ING RETURN OF WEALTH WITHIN WTA NO.01-02/RAN/2016 A.YS. 08-09 & 09-0 SMT. TRIPTA SHARMA VS. ACWT, CIR-II, DHN PAGE 3 THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 17A, FOR BOTH THE AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAD EXPIRED, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT DECLARING THE NET WEALTH U/S.14 WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SE C.17A(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC.18(1) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 6. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.18 (1)(C) OF THE WEALTH T AX ACT, 1957, PROVIDES THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCE EDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON, HAS CONCEALED THE PARTIC ULARS OF ANY ASSETS OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ANY ASSETS OR D EBTS, HE MAY, BY ORDER IN WRITING, DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY O F PENALTY IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OF SEC.18(1)(C), IN ADDIT ION TO ANY WEALTH-TAX PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHI CH SHALL NOT EXCEED FIVE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REA SON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ANY ASSETS OR THE FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSETS OR DEBTS: 7. EXPLANATION 3 : TO SEC.18(1) PROVIDES AS FOLLOW S: WHERE ANY PERSON FAILS, WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, TO FURNISH WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 17A, A RETURN OF HIS NET WEALTH WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH UNDER SECTIO N 14 IN RESPECT OF ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1989, AND UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID, NO NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM UNDER CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 16 O R SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 17 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS SATISFIE D THAT IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR SUCH PERSON HAS ASSESSABLE NET WEALTH, THEN, SUCH PERSON SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) O F THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS ASS ETS OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ANY ASSETS OR DEBTS IN RE SPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH PERSON F URNISHES A RETURN OF HIS NET WEALTH AT ANY TIME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF EITH ER OF THE PERIODS AFORESAID APPLICABLE TO HIM IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 17. 8. A PERUSAL OF EXPLANATION 3 WOULD SHOW THAT IF R ETURNED WEALTH AND ASSESSED WEALTH ARE ONE AND THE SAME STILL THERE CA N BE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IF THE RETURN OF WEALTH WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN FI LED U/S.14 WITHIN THE TIME WTA NO.01-02/RAN/2016 A.YS. 08-09 & 09-0 SMT. TRIPTA SHARMA VS. ACWT, CIR-II, DHN PAGE 4 SPECIFIED IN SEC.17A(1) HAD NOT BEEN FILED WITHIN T HE SAID TIME LIMIT. THIS IS HOWEVER SUBJECT TO AN EXCEPTION THAT IF THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FILING RETURN OF NET WEALTH WITHIN THE TIME AS AFOR ESAID, THEN THERE CAN BE NO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ORDER WAS PASSED ON 23.11.2009 AND AS ON THAT DATE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF WEALTH WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 17A, FOR BO TH THE AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 HAD EXPIRED, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT D ECLARING THE NET WEALTH U/S.14 WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SEC.17A(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC.18(1) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. TH E SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE CANCELLED. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED . 9. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 09 /09/2016 SD/- SD/- ( ) ($% ) (M.BALAGANESH) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) RANCHI, *DKP &- 09 / 09 /201 6 RANCHI / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. /ASSESSEE-SMT. TRIPTA SARMA, BANEIKALA, JODA, DIST. KEONJHAR, ODISHA-826004 2. /REVENUE-ACWT, CIRCLE-II, DHANBAD 3. 1 3 / CONCERNED CIT RANCHI 4. 3- / CIT (A) RANCHI 5. 6 %%1, 1, / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. < / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR.PS, I TAT, RANCHI WTA NO.01-02/RAN/2016 A.YS. 08-09 & 09-0 SMT. TRIPTA SHARMA VS. ACWT, CIR-II, DHN PAGE 5 1. DATE OF DICTATION- ........ 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER ......... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S. - .. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 8. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER