RAVINDRA GOPIKISHAN AGRAWAL,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, LATUR

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM :

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad dated 05.04.2016 for the assessment year 2010-11 as per following grounds of appeal on record:

“1. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has not looked into fact of the case that there was genuine mistake while submission of original return of income and revised return is submitted to correct the mistake happened due to oversight. There was no intention to conceal income in original return of income. 2. CIT(A) has erred with fact of case and therefore his order of agreeing with levy of penalty for concealment should be set aside. 3. I appeal that the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of Rs.51,690/- is unjust and need to be dropped.

2 ITA No.504 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2010-11

levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as

‘the Act’) for Rs.51,690/- on account of concealment of income.

have perused the case record and find that for the interest of justice and

considering the Income tax laws as welfare legislation, we should condone the

delay and hear the appeal on merits. Accordingly, we do so.

Representative was present. We have recorded the presence of the Ld. DR.

brief facts emerging in this case are that the assessment was completed

u/s.143(3) of the Act on 08.03.2013 determining total income at

Rs.10,51,200/- as against return income of Rs.8,83,920/-. During the course

of assessment proceedings on verification of creditors, it was noticed by the

Assessing Officer that assessee has shown unsecured loan from Amit Jalan at

Rs.20,00,000/- was against the investment made in the Prayaja City, Pune.

The Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that this property was proposed to

be purchased from Amit Jalan who has already booked this property with the

property dealer. Thereafter, the assessee has transferred the right to the third

party of which no documents are prepared. These transactions were made

only by giving part payment. From these transactions, he has received income

and credited to the P & L Account. However, the same has not been taken in

the original computation of income.

3 ITA No.504 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2010-11

the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals), the main contention of the Revenue is that it is

because of the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer asking the

assessee to file revised return that all the details of the transactions was

incorporated therein which was not there in the original return of income by

the assessee. If the questionnaire was not issued by the Assessing Officer and

revised return was not asked to be filed then the assessee would have

concealed this income from return. The action of the assessee therefore in

filing revised return is not suo-moto, hence, once the transactions were not

there in the original return there is concealment of income.

records and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. The

contention of the Revenue is that in the revised return details of transactions

which are mentioned in the penalty order was not shown suo-moto but

because of the fact that Assessing Officer had asked the assessee through

questionnaire to file details in the revised return that resulted in providing

details of transactions in such return. In absence of this exercise by the

Assessing Officer, the assessee would have concealed the income. However, in

the penalty order, we find that it is admitted by the Assessing Officer himself

that from transactions the income received has been credited to the P & L

Account of the assessee.

This facts signifies that the intention of the assessee was never to

defraud the Revenue. The details of the transactions through which the

income has been received, was there in the P & L Account of the assessee,

which inadvertently not there in the original return of income, however, those

were again filed in the revised return of the assessee. There was no deliberate

intention from the facts on record which can even hint that the assessee was

4 ITA No.504 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2010-11

trying to conceal his income. The books of account especially P & L Account were already filed with the Department. All the transactions from which income earned was mentioned therein.

Order pronounced on 22nd day of January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- R.S. SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 22nd January, 2019. SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-2, Aurangabad. 4. The Pr. CIT-2, Aurangabad. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “बी” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

5 ITA No.504 /PUN/2017 A.Y.2010-11

Date 1 Draft dictated on 21.01.2019 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 22.01.2019 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order