Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-2, Jalandhar (Camp
office at Srinagar) {in brevity CIT(A)} bearing appeal
ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO no.95/12-13/CIT(A)/Jammu date of order 06.03.2018, passed
u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act)
for the Assessment year 2006-07. The impugned order was
originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-III(2),
Srinagar (in brevity the A.O) passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act
for the order dated 28.05.2012.
The brief fact of the case is that assessment u/s. 143(3)
of the Act was completed & assessed demand amount of
Rs.2,84,429/-. Assessee had paid the tax and not filed any
appeal against the order of the ld. AO. The penalty proceeding
was initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) and penalty was levied @100% of
the tax sought to be evaded amount to Rs.1,89,726/-.
Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). After the
detail hearing, the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the penalty in favour
of the revenue. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal
against the order of ld. CIT(A) before us.
The ld. Counsel of the assessee appeared and draw our
attention on the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the
Act. He further pointed out that addition was made based on
difference of opening balance of Sundry Creditors amount of
ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO Rs.4,18,876/-, violation of section 40A(3) of the Act amount to
Rs.60,000/- and disallowance of expenses amount to
Rs.50.000/-. No other concealment was found during the
assessment. The ld. Counsel further argued that assessee for
buying peace in mind paid the tax the not filed any appeal
against the order of ld. AO.
The ld. SR DR argued and mentioned that the penalty
cannot be stopped on the basis of the non-filing of appeal and
payment of demanded tax u/s. 143(3).
We heard the rival submissions and considered the
documents available on the record. The additions were made
by the ld. AO on the basis of difference in opening balance of
sundry creditors (ii) violation of section 40(A)(3) and
disallowance of expenses. The respectful observation of the
order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Reliance
Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), merely because a claim
has not been accepted in the assessment, it would not follow
that the assessee had concealed its income or furnished
inaccurate particulars of income. We also observed that the
submission made only on the basis of expenses and difference
ITA No.379/Asr/2018 Mohammad Iqbal Qureshi v. ITO in opening balance of sundry creditors. Considering the order of
apex court we directed to delete the penalty amount to
Rs.1,89,726/-,levied U/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2022
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee) Accountant Member Judicial Member
Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order