Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY & DR. A.L.SAINI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR
BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 486/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15
Income Tax Officer-3(4) Sh. Harnidhan Singh Jalandhar. R/s 90, Guru Gobind Singh Vs. Nagar, Jalandhar. [PAN:BHLPS 0293Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Respondent by: Sh. Ashray Sarna (Ld. DR)
Date of hearing: 29.11.2019 Date of pronouncement: 30.12.2019
ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’).
The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.1,86,41,816/- and observed that the assessee deliberately & willfully concealed his particulars of income in the original return filed on 31.3.3015, for which the case was selected for scrutiny. In the last para of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has observed that “thus I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income to the tune of
2 ITA N0.486/Asr/ 2018 (A.Y.2014-15) ITO vs. Sh. Harnidhan Singh
Rs.1,86,41,816/- in his original return of income and therefore, concealed his income”. Subsequently, issued the notice u/s 271 r.w.s 271 of the Act for the concealment of particulars of income u/s 271(1)(c) and ultimately vide penalty order dated 19.06.2017 levied the penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.
The assessee preferred the first appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dated 30.07.2018 though did not accept the issue qua defective notice u/s 274 of the Act, raised by the assessee, however, on merit deleted the penalty by observing as under: 4.11. “4.11. I have also carefully considered the submissions made on merits of the case and find that these facts are not disputed that appellant had made a surrender of income on 28.11.2015 and also revised the return of income on 31.03.2016. It is seen from the sequence events stated above that surrender of income and revised return was filed before the facts of bogus gains on share transactions were confronted by the AO. I have also gone through the judicial decisions cited by the appellant on this issue including that of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and find that penalty has been imposed by the AO merely on the basis of surrender of income made by the appellant in the course of investigation proceedings before the ADIT and also a revised return of income was filed. No independent enquiries have been made or any finding has been given by the AO or any other adverse material been brought on record in the course of penalty proceedings to hold that appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or has concealed the income. Respectfully following the judicial decisions cited by the appellant of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court & Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench on this issue, 1 hold that there is no justification in the action of the AO and therefore, delete the penalty of Rs.63,68,527/- imposed by the AO.”
3.1 We realize that while dealing with the penalty order, the Ld. CIT(A) not only considered the peculiar facts and circumstances to the effect that the penalty has been imposed by the AO merely on the
3 ITA N0.486/Asr/ 2018 (A.Y.2014-15) ITO vs. Sh. Harnidhan Singh
basis of surrendered income made by the assessee in the course of investigation proceedings before the ADIT and the assessee has also filed his revised return of income and further no independent enquiries have been made or any finding has been given by the AO or any other adverse material have been brought on record in the course of penalty proceedings to hold that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or has concealed the income. Ultimately, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty of Rs.63,68,527/- imposed by the AO.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has analyzed all the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and rightly held that the penalty has been imposed merely on the basis of surrendered income during the investigation proceedings and it is a fact that the assessee corrected his return by filing a revised return of income. It is also a fact that no adverse material was available before the AO to fasten the liability against the assessee qua furnishing of particulars of income or concealing the income. Consequently, on the aforesaid reasons the deletion of penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) is sustainable and hence the order under challenge does not require any interference by this Bench.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/12/2019.
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30/12/2019. /PK/ Ps.
4 ITA N0.486/Asr/ 2018 (A.Y.2014-15) ITO vs. Sh. Harnidhan Singh