Smt. A.S. Maragathallakshmi, Ahmedabad v. The ACIT., Circle-9,, Ahmedabad

ITA 1886/AHD/2007 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 188620514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ABIPS3506N
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1886/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Smt. A.S. Maragathallakshmi, Ahmedabad
Respondent The ACIT., Circle-9,, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 27-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 27-04-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2007
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A-BENCH AHMEDABAD. BEFORE: SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1886/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) SMT. A.S. MARAGATHALAKSHMI PROP. OF SHREE AMBHA ASSOCIATES PLOT NO.114 GIDC HANSALPUR VIRAKGAM ABAD. ACIT CIR-9 AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) VERSUS (RESPONDENT) PAN:ABIPS 3506 N FOR THE ASSESSEE: SHRI VIVEK N. CHAVDA CA FOR THE REVENUE: SHRI. RAJEEV AGARWAL CIT DR ORDER PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XV AHMEDABAD DA TED 05-03-2007. IN THIS APPEAL THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVE RAL GROUNDS HOWEVER THEY ARE ALL AGAINST THE PENALTY OF RS.1 48 495/- L EVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH IS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US IT IS SUBMITTE D BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 28-11-2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.14 59 863/- . IN THIS RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 80IA AMOUNTING TO RS.4 71 414/-. THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT. THAT ON 23-11-2004 THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REVISED RETU RN IN WHICH DEDUCTION 2 ITA NO.1886/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80IA WAS WITHDRAWN. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE REVISED RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER HE LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.1 48 495/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE REVISED RETURN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUO-MOTU. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA-FIDE AND IT WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED VALID REVISED RETURN SUO-MOTU BEFORE ANY QUERY HAVING BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. THAT ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS AND THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF AN Y FACT NOR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. MERELY BECAUSE A DE DUCTION WAS CLAIMED WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF VOLUNTA RILY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION HE RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC). 3. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA WAS NOT BONA-FIDE. TH E ASSESSEE MADE A WRONG CLAIM PRESUMING THAT HER INCOME WOULD BE ACCE PTED UNDER SECTION 143(1). AS SOON AS IT CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HER RETURN IS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY HE REVISED THE RET URN. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THA T THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LT D.(SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO.1886/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULAR S USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY O F FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASS ESSEE TO PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAG INATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHI NG WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICU LARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INAC CURATE THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY THE DET AILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. 5. IN OUR OPINION THE RATIO OF ABOVE DECISION WOULD BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE 4 ITA NO.1886/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED IN RESPECT OF DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80IA CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE REVENUE HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVER IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS WITHDRAWN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA BY FURNISHING A VALID REVISED RETURN. OF COURSE THE REVISED RETURN WAS FURNISHE D AFTER THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BUT IT WAS FURNISHED B EFORE ANY QUERY RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF THE AS SESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA. CONSIDERING THE TOTA LITY OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN OUR OPINION IT WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ). BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER WE MENTION THAT THE LEARNED DR HAS RELI ED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HOWEVER THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND AND IS BINDING UP ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES IN INDIA. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (G.D. AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VIC E PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED: 30/04/2010 ANKIT* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. THE CIT 5 ITA NO.1886/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-2004) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR/ DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD.