SUBHASH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,DHANBAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2), DHANBAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 111/RAN/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 April 20192 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the quantum assessment and penalty proceedings are parallel, and not every addition warrants a penalty. The assessee had provided evidence for his agricultural income claim, which was sufficient to negate concealment or inaccurate particulars.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed agricultural income of Rs. 11,26,430/-, which was added to his total income. Subsequently, a penalty was levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee appealed against this penalty.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the assessee has provided evidence for the claimed agricultural income, and if quantum additions automatically lead to penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI

Before: Shri S.S, Godara

आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Ranchi’s order dated 13.12.2017 passed in case No. 152/DHN/2014-15, involving proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short ‘the Act’.

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. I therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

4.

The Assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal seeks to reverse both the lower authorities’ action imposing penalty with regard to quantum assessment of his agricultural income claim of Rs.11,26,430/- as income from ‘other’ sources. There is no dispute about said quantum assessment having attained finality. The Revenue vehemently supports lower authorities’ action penalizing the assessee

ITA No. 111/Ran/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Subhash Kr. Choudhary Vs. ITO Wd-II(2), DHN Page 2 to the tune of Rs.4,79,140/- regarding the above agricultural income claimed. I find no merit in Revenue’s arguments. The fact remains that the assessee had duly placed on record supportive evidence regarding leaseholder of agriculture land in issue. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in CIT V/s Reliance Petro Products Ltd 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the law that quantum penalty proceedings are parallel in nature wherein each and every disallowance/addition does not invite the latter penal provision. I keep in mind this settled legal proposition to conclude that assessee’s evidence placed on record in support of agricultural income makes it sufficient case of neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income per se. I accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned penalty.

5.

This Assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced on 8/4/19

Sd/- (S.S. Godara) Judicial Member *PP/Sr.PS Dated/ �दनांकः- 8/04/2019 रांची आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Subhash Kr. Choudhary, Kendua Pool, Kusunda, Dhanbad 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ITO Ward-II(1), Dhanbad-826001 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण रांची / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

Sr. Private Secretary/P.S ITAT Ranchi

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →