SHRI RAJESH ASSANAND MADHRANI,, Nagpur v. ACIT-CIRCLE-6,, Nagpur

ITA 130/NAG/2014 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 13023914 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ACYPM9343A
Bench Nagpur
Appeal Number ITA 130/NAG/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant SHRI RAJESH ASSANAND MADHRANI,, Nagpur
Respondent ACIT-CIRCLE-6,, Nagpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 21-03-2014
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 130/NAG/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T. A. NO.130/NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09. RAJESH ASSANAND MADHRANI ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX MASKASATH WARD NO.49 V/S. CIRCLE - 6 NAGPUR. NAGPUR. PAN ACYPM9343A APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 06 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 ST JULY 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I I NAGPUR DATED 11 - 12 - 2013. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF ` .3 08 190/ - . 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING NO ONE HAS APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESS EE ALTHOUGH A NOTICE WAS ISSUED. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE ISSUE WE HAVE DECIDED TO PROCEED EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. WHO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PENALTY ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 2 ITA NO. 130/NAG/2014 IN SHORT HE HAS ARGUED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO CONCEAL THE CAPITAL GAIN BUT HE WAS CAUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE HE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO SURRENDER THE AMOUNT. HE HAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED. 3. AN AS SESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 30 TH NOV. 2010 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY HAS SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME A RECEIPT OF ` .18 LAKHS STATED TO BE A SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF A FLAT SOLD IN MUMBAI. THE AS SESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF ` .6 00 896/ - . AN ENQUIRY WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F BUT LATER ON THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT IT PROPER TO SURRENDER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF ` .6 00 896 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE OFFERED THE AMOUNT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE HE HAD AN INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE CAPITAL GAIN. THE SAID CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F WAS DISALLOWED AND TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE SIMULTANEOUSLY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED. 4. AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL HOWEVER FAILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 5. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE F ACTS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE HAVE FORMED THIS OPINION ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION OF THE FLAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ADOPTED THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. IT IS ALSO ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF ` .11 50 000/ - 3 ITA NO. 130/NAG/2014 TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOTS HOWEVER CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F AT ` .6 00 896/ - AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN. ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOTS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED THE AMOUNT TOWARDS PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOT WAS TO CONSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISITE CLEARANCE/PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY IT WAS DECIDED NOT TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION. THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO US CONCEALM ENT REFERS TO A DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IF EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM HAS BEEN TREATED TO BE BONAFIDE AND IT HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTED ON THE BASIS OF A WRONG AD VISE THEN PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED. RATHER THIS IS A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED AND THOSE PARTICULARS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND UNTRUE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE EXCEPTION S CAR RIED OUT IN EXPLANATION ANNEXED TO THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE TO BE APPLIED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE PENALTY IS THEREFORE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2015. SD/ - SD/ - ( SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAW AT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR DATED: 31 ST JULY 2015. 4 ITA NO. 130/NAG/2014 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R. ITAT NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER WAKODE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NAGPUR