Shri R. Balakrishnan, CHENNAI v. ITO, Puducherry

ITA 2205/CHNY/2016 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 220521714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAPPB6828C
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 2205/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant Shri R. Balakrishnan, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, Puducherry
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 22-07-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI . . . !' . #$#% & '' ( [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.2205/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-2009 SHRI. R. BALAKRISHNAN PROP: RASU PILLAI & SONS 143 THIAGAMUDALIAR STREET PUDUCHERRY 605 001. [PAN AAPPB 6828C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(1) PONDICHERRY. ( )* / APPELLANT) ( + )* /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. SUPRIYO PAL IRS JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 13-10-2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-10-2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ITS GRIEVAN CE ON LEVY OF PENALTY OF @1 00 355/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2205/MDS/2016 :- 2 -: 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A WHOLESALE MERCHAN T IN VEGETABLES HAD FILED A RETURN DISCLOSING AN INCOM E OF @3 30 410/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT IT WAS NOTICED TH AT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITS IN A BANK ACCOUNT WITH ING VYASA BANK PO NDICHERRY. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT SOME OF THE TRANSACTIO NS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS WAS PUT TO ASSESSEE IT SEEMS HE AGREED F OR THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE PEAK CREDIT CAME TO @2 38 350/- AND AN ADDITION OF SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE. FURTHER A SSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION FOR LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE. AD DITION ON THE GROSS PROFIT CAME TO RS.60 206/-. AGGREGATE ADDITION CA ME TO 2 98 556/-. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S.271(1) (C) R.W.S 274 OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE SEEKING REASON WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE L EVIED UNDER THE FORMER SECTION. REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS A VEGETABLE MERCHANT AND HAD USED HIS ACCOUNT IN ING VYASA FOR PERSONAL PURPOSE ALSO. AS PER ASSESSEE SAID ACCOUNT BEING PERSONAL A CCOUNT HE HAD NOT INCORPORATED THE ENTRIES THEREIN IN ITS BOOKS OF AC COUNTS. HOWEVER ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE CONTENTI ON. ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. HE LEVIED A PENALTY OF 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED WHICH CAME TO @1 00 355/-. ITA NO.2205/MDS/2016 :- 3 -: 3. ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BUT DID NOT MEET WITH ANY SUCC ESS. 4. NOW BEFORE US LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AGREED FOR THE ADDITION NOT BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF HIS BUSINESS RECEIPTS BUT ONLY SINCE ASSESSEE WANTED T O MAINTAIN PEACE WITH DEPARTMENT. AS PER LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 5. PER CONTRA LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGL Y SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FINDINGS OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN PENALTY ORDER IS THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME TO THE EXTENT OF DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT I N ING VYASA. THE PEAK CREDIT CAME TO @2 38 350/-. ASSESSEE HAD GIV EN AN EXPLANATION THAT THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS USED FOR HIS PERSONAL PUR POSE AND THIS WAS THE REASON WHY ENTRIES THEREON WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF HIS BUSINESS. ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A PROPRIETARY CONCERN CALLED RASU PILLAI & SONS SELLI NG VEGETABLES. IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT EVERY PERSONAL ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY AN ASSESSEE IN A BANK SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF HIS BUSI NESS. NOTHING STOPS ITA NO.2205/MDS/2016 :- 4 -: THE ASSESSEE WHO IS AN INDIVIDUAL TO MAINTAIN A BAN K ACCOUNT FOR PERSONAL USE WHICH IS NOT CONNECTED TO HIS BUSINES S. THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT CREDITS IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT WERE UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED IT. TH IS WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS A CONCEALMENT THAT WOULD ATTRACT THE RIGOURS OF SEC. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THIS WAS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. PENALTY LEVIED STANDS DE LETED. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 28TH DAY OF OCT OBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !' . #$#% ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED:28TH OCTOBER 2016 KV &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. + ' / CIT(A) 5. )-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. + / CIT 6. .01 / GF