Dhiren Gopal HUF , Bangalore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 306/BANG/2019 | 2014-2015
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 30621114 RSA 2019
Assessee PAN AABHS8024F
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 306/BANG/2019
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Dhiren Gopal HUF , Bangalore
Respondent Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags 271(1)(c)
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2021
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2021
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 04-08-2020
First Hearing Date 09-12-2019
Assessment Year 2014-2015
Appeal Filed On 19-02-2019
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER IT A NO. 306/ BANG / 2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SHRI DHIREN GOPAL HUF # 16/A KKMP BUILDING MILLERS ROAD VASANTH NAGAR BANGALORE 560 052. PAN: AABHS 8024F VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(2)(1) BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : S HRI B.R. SUDH E E NDRA CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KANNAN NARAYANAN JT.C IT (DR)(ITAT) BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 10.03. 202 1 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 .0 3 .202 1 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2019 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-1 BENGALURU FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT]. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE A H UF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30.07.2014 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 82 33 53 0 COMPRISING OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH JAWAHAR GOPAL HUF AND MANOHAR ITA NO.306/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 GOPAL HUF WAS A CO-OWNER OF INDUSTRIAL LAND SITUATE D AT HEJJALA VILLAGE BIDADI BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT MEASURING 2 55 730 .60 SQUARE FEET. THE CO- OWNERS TOGETHER HAD SPENT A SUM OF RS 37 26 909 TOW ARDS ROAD CONSTRUCTION CANTEEN SHED SECURITY ROOM COMPOUND WALL ETC. ON THE SAID PROPERTY FEATHERLITE OFFICE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. HAD B UILT UP THE FACTORY BUILDING MEASURING 85 864 SQ.FT. 3. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH THE OTHER CO-OWNERS HAD LET OUT THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY TO M/ S FEATHERLITE OFFICE SYSTEMS PVT LTD. THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF RENT RECEI VED FOR THE YEAR WAS RS 1 02 00 000 OUT OF WHICH 1/3 RD BEING RS 34 00 000 WAS OFFERED AS GROUND RENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. THE BALANCE RS 68 00 000 WAS OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. THIS PRACTICE HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ONWARDS REMAINING UNDISTURBED IMPLICITLY ACCEPTED. THE ASS ESSEE THEREFORE LED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS WAS THE CORRECT PROCEDURE. 4. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DATED 07.09.2015 W AS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. VARIOUS DETAILS / INFORMATI ON CALLED FOR BY THE AO WERE FURNISHED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSMENT HA S BEEN COMPLETED AND THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED ON 26.10. 2016. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE RENTAL INCOME OF RS 68 00 000 WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SAME WAS ADDED T O THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. TAX INCLUDING SURCHARGE AND EDUCATIO N CESS WAS COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C W AS BEEN LEVIED AT RS. 2 73 141 AND RS. 10 598 RESPECTIVELY. AMOUNT PAYABL E WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 10 93 070. THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE A ND AVOID LITIGATION PAID THE ABOVE SAID TAX DEMAND VIDE CHALLAN 06-05-2017. 5. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 143(3) ITA NO.306/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 STATING THAT WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). AS THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID LITIGA TION HAD AGREED TO PAY THE TAX DEMAND NO RESPONSE WAS FILED AGAINST THE N OTICE. A LETTER DATED 12.04.2016 WAS ISSUED BY THE AO PROVIDING A FINAL O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON 19.04.2017. IN RESPONSE A LETTER WAS FILE D ON 18.04.2017 INFORMING THE AO THAT THE AR OF ASSESSEE MR. B.S. BALAJI WAS NOT IN STATION AND A REQUEST WAS PLACED TO GRANT AN ADJOURNMENT. T HE AR MR. BALAJI WAS NOT IN STATION FROM 18.04.2017 TO 30.04.2017. HE HA D TRAVELLED TO MELUKOTE FOR 1000TH BIRTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION OF RAMANUJ ACHARYA. 6. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WITHOUT PROVIDING A FRESH DATE OF HEARING HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) HOLDING THAT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY LEVIED A SUM OF RS 7 00 000 AS PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT SIM ILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE O F CO-OWNER SHRI GOPAL MANOHAR HUF IN ITA NO.307/BANG/2019 DATED 26.7.2019 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER:- 7. WE HAVE PERUSED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH SI DES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD R EPORTED IN (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 227 AND CIT VS HIRALAL DOSHI REPORTED IN (2017) 79 TAXMANN.COM 371. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A DDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS LD.AO DID NOT AGREE WITH HEAD UNDER W HICH RENTAL INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) A LSO CONFIRMED LEVY OF PENALTY ON ASSESSEE. 8. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD.AO IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY PARTIC ULARS OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS MADE OUT BY REVENUE. IT IS A CASE WHERE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE DUE TO CHANGE ITA NO.306/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 OF HEAD OF INCOME BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACT TH AT VIEW EXPRESSED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE LD.AO AT ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS WAS NOT ACCEPTED WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO GIVE RISE TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON'BLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS BENNETT COLEMAN AND COMPANY LTD (SUPRA) AND CIT VS HIRALAL DOSHI (SUPRA). WE THUS D IRECT LD.AO TO DELETE PENALTY LEVIED. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOW ED. 10. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED. 8. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER AND TAKING A CONSIS TENT VIEW WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF MARCH 2021. SD/- SD/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 10 TH MARCH 2021. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.