Raj Rani Gupta, New Delhi v. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3371/DEL/2011 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 337120114 RSA 2011
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3371/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Raj Rani Gupta, New Delhi
Respondent DCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-03-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted F
Tribunal Order Date 30-03-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 14-03-2012
Next Hearing Date 14-03-2012
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 29-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJ PAL YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3371 /DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. RAJ RANI GUPTA DCIT A-172 MEERA BAGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-5 NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AALPG AALPG AALPG AALPG- -- -1885 1885 1885 1885- -- -E EE E APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR CIT-DR. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A)-I NEW DELHI DATED 26.5.2011 UNDER SECTION 2 71AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HIN DUSTAN STEEL V. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83 ITR 26 STILL HOLD G OOD AND APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. HENCE THE PENALTY LEVIED IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE PENALTY SHALL NOT BE LEVIED ORDINARILY WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ITA NO3371/DEL/11 2 NOT AT FAULT OF MISCONDUCT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AN D CIT(A) ERRED BY LEVYING PENALTY ON THE APPELLANT WITHOUT A NY FINDING/PROVING ANYTHING ON RECORD IN RELATION TOE ADDITIONAL INCOME. HENCE THE PENALTY LEVIED IS UNCALLED AND WI THOUT ANY BASIS. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD CIT(A) AND THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED BY CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT FAILS TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 2 71AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS TRULY DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHATEVER BEING ASKED BY THE OATH ADMINISTRATOR. HENCE PENALTY LEVIED IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND SHALL BE DELETED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS FILED HER E.RETURN FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2 007-08 ON 30 TH JANUARY 2009 WHICH INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ` .2 30 00 000/- WHICH WAS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIX ZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED ON 28.9.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 31.12.2009 AND THEN PROCEED ED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA ON THE BASIS T HAT DURING RECORDING OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. HE ISSUED THE NOTICE ON 24.5.2010 U/S 271AAA READ WIT H SECTION 274 INVITING ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AS TO WHY PENALTY BE NOT IMPOSED. 3. THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271AA A ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF `.2.30 CR ORES. ITA NO3371/DEL/11 3 2. THE OFFICER WHO WAS TAKING THE OATH DID NOT ASK THE M ANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED. 3. THE OFFICER DID NOT PUT THE QUESTION OR EXPLAIN TO T HE ASSESSEE THAT IF YOU SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU HAV E DERIVED THE INCOME YOU WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PAY FURTHER PE NALTY U/S 271AAA. 4. THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE MA NNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED. 5. AT THE TIME OF OATH NO PROFESSIONAL PERSON WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT BECOMES THE DUTY OF THE OATH ADMINISTRATOR TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISION OF THE LAW OR THE CONSEQUENCES OF NON DECLARATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATIO N. 6. FRAMING OF THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT IN THE SCOPE OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ASSESSEE HAS ANSWERED ONLY TO THOSE QUESTIONS WHICH WERE BEING PUT IN FRONT OF HER. 8. THE ASSESSEE IS LAYMAN WHEREAS OATH ADMINISTRATOR IS REPRESENTING INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND SHOULD BE VERY WELL AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND FORCE IN HE R CONTENTIONS AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF `.23 LAKHS U/S 271AAA. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL. HOWE VER THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO TURNED DOWN ON THE SAME BASIS I.E. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH IN COME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE EXPLAINING HOW THIS INCOME WAS DERIVED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) THE APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO3371/DEL/11 4 5. DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD REPLIED ALL QUESTIONS AND SHE IS NOT EXPECTED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION WHICH WAS NOT PUT TO HER. SHE DID NOT KN OW THE LAW. HOWEVER SHE HAS ADMITTED THAT IT WAS HER MONEY. THE LD AR FILED BRIEF SYNOPSIS AND TOOK US THROUGH THEM. THEY READ AS UN DER:- 1. THE SECTION WAS EFFECTIVE W.EF. IST JUNE 2007. 2. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 28.9.2007I.E. ALMOST AFTE R THREE MONTHS. 3. APPELLANT HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF `.2. 30 CRORES AS UNDECLARED INCOME AND PAID THE TAX ON THE SAME. 4. THE OATH ADMINISTRATOR DID NOT ASK TO SPECIFY THE MANN ER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED. HOWEVER THE APPELLANT STATED VOLUNTARILY THAT NOW I VOLUNTARILY DECLARE THIS `.2.30 CRORES AN D PAY TAX WITH A BELIEF THAT NO PENALTY AND HARASSMENT SHALL BE DONE. THIS INCOME IS ADDITIONAL INCOME OTHER THAN MY DECLARED INCOME. AN Y DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH IN MY NAME HAVING ANY ENTRY SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS INCOME. 5. THE APPELLANT TRUTHFULLY ANSWERED EVERY QUESTION BEIN G ASKED AND FULFILLED ITS OBLIGATION. THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE A PPELLANT WAS BONA FIDE GENUINE AND IN ACCORDANCE TO HER KNOWLED GE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO SPEC IFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVE D RATHER QUESTIONS WERE NOT RAISED AT ALL. 6. THE OATH ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE APPE LLANT THAT YOU HAVE NOT SPECIFIED AND SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER I N WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. THEREFORE. YOU COULD BE PEN ALIZED. 7. THE APPELLANT IS LAYMAN WHEREAS OATH ADMINISTRATOR W AS REPRESENTING INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND CONDUCTING SEA RCH WITH MANY OFFICERS. IN A WAY HE MUST BE VERY WELL AWARE OF THE ITA NO3371/DEL/11 5 PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AND ESPECIALLY PROVISIONS RELATED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE. 8. FRAMING OF THE QUESTIONS WERE NOT IN THE SCOPE OF THE APPELLANT. 9. THE APPELLANT RELY THE DECISION OF CIT V. RADHA KISHA N GOEL 278 ITR 454 WHERE THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ACCEPTED THAT UNLESS THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER PUTS A SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. IT IS NOT E XPECTED FROM THE PERSON TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD. 10. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CLARIFIED THE NATURE AND SOURC E OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT W AS NOT HAVING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ADDITIONAL I NCOME OTHERWISE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED DURING THE SEA RCH. 6. THE LD AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA (1972) 83-ITR 26 (SC) HE PARTICULARLY MADE REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING OBSE RVATION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT:- AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI CRIMINAL PROCEEDIN GS AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PART Y OBLIGED EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CONDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF ITS OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATIO N IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICI ALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBES THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IM POSE PENALTY ITA NO3371/DEL/11 6 WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PR OVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONA FIDE BELIE F THAT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBE D BY THE STATUTE. 7. THE DR STRESSED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND LD CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLO SE THE FULL PARTICULARS DURING HER STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND ALSO GA VE CONFLICTING REPLIES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE BENEFIT OF IM MUNITY AVAILABLE IN CLAUSE (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT CANNOT BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE RIVAL PART IES AND HAS GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS APPROPRIATE HERE TO TAKE NOTE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA WHICH READS AS UNDER:- SECTION 271AAA (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOTWITHSTA NDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT DIRECT THAT IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED U/S 132 ON OR AFTER THE IST DAY OF JUNE 2007 THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY B Y WAY OF PENALTY IN ADDITION TO TAX IF ANY PAYABLE BY HIM A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF 10% OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB SECTION (1) SHALL APPLY T HE ASSESSEE. I) IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN A STATEMENT UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIE S THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. ITA NO3371/DEL/11 7 II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UN DISCLOSED INC OME WAS DERIVED; AND III) PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IF ANY IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. (3) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB SECTION (1). (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275 SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY REFERRED TO IN THI S SECTION. 9. FROM READING THE ABOVE PROVISION IT IS APPARENT THAT PENALTY U/S 271AAA CANNOT BE IMPOSED IF IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN A STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SUB SECTION 4 OF SECTION 132 THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES AND SUBSTANTIATES THE MAN NER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND ALSO HAS PAID T HE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME . IN THE PRESENT CASE THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S 132(4). THE RELEVANT ENGLISH VERSION OF PORTION OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 13 2(4) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- Q.NO.3. FROM YOUR PLACE HAND WRITTEN PAPER ATTACH ED AT PAGE NO.40 ANNEXURE A-8 IS FOUND. ON THIS PAPER `.2.30 CRO RE IS BEING PAID FOR ONE SCHOOL AT JAIPUR. PLEASE PROVIDE THE DET AILS? ANS. I ACCEPT THE DETAILS MENTIONED ON THE PAPER. Q.NO.4. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER YOU HAVE DECLARED THIS AMOUNT IN YOUR INCOME TAX RETURN OR NOT? ITA NO3371/DEL/11 8 ANS. THIS AMOUNT I HAVE NOT SHOWN IN MY INCOME TAX RET URN BUT NOW I VOLUNTARILY DECLARE THIS `.2.30 CRORE AND PAY TAX WITH A BELIEF THAT NO PENALTY AND HARASSMENT SHALL BE DONE. THIS INCOME IS ADDITIONAL INCOME OTHER THAN MY DECLARED INCOME. ANY DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH IN MY NAME HAVING ANY E NTRY SHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS INCOME. Q.NO.5. PLEASE INFORM HOW YOU WILL PAY TAX ON THE AD DITIONAL DECLARED AMOUNT OF `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