Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Ropar v. ITO, Ropar

ITA 353/CHANDI/2012 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 35321514 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ATGPS5198A
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 353/CHANDI/2012
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Sukhdev Singh, Ropar
Respondent ITO, Ropar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-07-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-07-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 24-07-2012
Next Hearing Date 24-07-2012
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 22-03-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD AM AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM ITAS NO. 348 TO 356/CHD/2012 A.YS: 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997 -98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 AND 2001-0 2 SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH V I.T.O. WARD 2(2) VILLAGE GOBINDPURA ROPAR ROPAR PAN: ATGPS 5198 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 24.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.07.2012 ORDER PER BENCH IN ALL THESE APPEALS A COMMON ISSUE REGARDING CONF IRMATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS INVOLVED. THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE ALSO COMMON THEREFORE THESE ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A PIECE OF LAND WAS OWNED BY ONE SMT. LABH KAUR WIDOW OF SHRI LACHHMAN SINGH WHO DIED IN 1946. THE LAND WAS ANCESTRAL LAND OF SHRI LACHHMAN SINGH. THE SAME WA S TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF SMT. LABH KAUR BECAUSE LACHHMAN SINGH HAD NO SON . SMT. LABH KAUR ALSO DIED IN 1966. SHE ALSO DID NOT HAVE SON AND THEREF ORE THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF SMT. PEELAN KAUR WHO WAS ONLY DAUGHT ER OF SMT. LABH KAUR. SMT. PEELAN KAUR HAD FIVE CHILDREN ONE SON I.E. THE ASSESSEE AND FOUR DAUGHTERS. THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SYL CANAL AND THE COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED. LATER ON T HIS COMPENSATION WAS CHALLENGED FOR ENHANCEMENT AND ULTIMATELY ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS GRANTED ALONG WITH INTEREST. THE ISSUE AROSE WHETH ER THIS ENHANCED COMPENSATION SHOULD BE PAID TO SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH A ND THE DISPUTE WAS SETTLED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT BY OBSERVING ON THE BASIS OF WILL AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH I S THE ONLY OWNER OF THE LAND. 2 IN THE MEANTIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED INTEREST HE DECLARED INCOME OF INTEREST ONLY AT 1/5 TH SHARE OF CLAIMING THAT REST OF THE INTEREST BELONG ED TO THE SISTERS. THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT ACCEPTED THIS CONT ENTION AND CHARGED WHOLE OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER TRAVELED TO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL BY REFERRING TO THE WILL AND THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ASSESSED ON WHOLE OF THE INTEREST. ON THE BASIS OF THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR WHICH THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ALSO INITIATED. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONS E TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ONLY A FEW ADJOURNMENTS WERE TAKEN AND NO REPLY WAS GIVEN AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ALL YEARS. 3 ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HIS SHARE OF COMPENS ATION WAS ONLY 1/5 TH AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO FURNISH THE I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THESE CONTEN TIONS AND CONFIRMED LEVY OF PENALTY. 4 BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT IN FACT ENHANCED COMPENSATION WAS TO BE SHARED BY THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH HIS FOUR SISTERS. HOWEVER THIS INVOLVED LOT OF LITIGATION AND THEREFORE INFORMAL ARRANGEMENT WAS MADE BY CREATING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT HIS SISTERS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO GO TO THE COURTS AGAIN AND AGAIN. IN FACT WHEN THE INTEREST WAS RECEIVED IT WAS GIVEN TO THE SISTERS AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PAGE 3 & 4 WHICH ARE THE COPIES OF THE AFFIDAVITS OF SMT. PARMINDER KAUR AND SMT. KULWANT KAUR IN WHICH IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEIR SHARE OF INTEREST AND THEY HAVE AUTHORIZED THEIR BROTHER SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH TO CON TEST THE CLAIMS FOR ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THEREFORE A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION WA S GIVEN WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE UNTRUE AND ACCORDINGLY PENALTY S HOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED. 5 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE STR ONGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THERE WAS WILL WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON' BLE HIGH COURT THAT THE 3 ASSESSEE WAS ONLY OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF SHARING THE INTEREST. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS EXPL ANATION HAS BEEN SET UP ONLY TO SAVE TAXES AND THEREFORE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS JUST IFIED. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. W E FIND THAT THE COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS OF SMT. PARMINDER KAUR AND SMT. KULWA NT KAUR HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US AND THE CONTENTS OF THESE AFFIDAVITS READ AS UNDER:- 1 THAT I AM ONE OF THE FOUR CHILDREN OF SMT. PEELA N WHOSE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PAYMENT OF INTER EST ON ENHANCED COMPENSATION OF LAND WAS RECEIVED BY SHRI SUKHDEV S INGH MY (OUR) BROTHER ON OUR BEHALF. WE ARE FIVE CHILDREN; FOUR SISTERS AND ONE BROTHER. BEING LADIES WE COULD NOT GO TO THE COURTS FREQUENT LY FOR THE PURPOSE AND THEREFORE WE AUTHORIZED OUR BROTHER SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH TO DO ALL THE ACTS ON OUR BEHALF BEING LEGAL HEIR. 2 THAT I HAVE RECEIVED MY SHARE OF INTEREST AND OTH ER RECEIPTS AGAINST THE ACQUISITION OF LAND LESS INCOME TAX DE DUCTED FROM MY BROTHER SHRI SUKHDEV SINGH AND TO MY SATISFACTION. 7 IN ADDITION TO THIS A CERTIFICATE FROM VILLAGE PA NCHAYAT HAS BEEN FILED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK STATING THAT FOUR SISTERS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE JOINT OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. THOUGH THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT HAS CLEARLY HELD THAT PROPERTY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THIS FINDING HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM APPEALS BUT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE. THERE CAN BE A POSSIBLE ARRANGEMENT BET WEEN THE FAMILY MEMBERS SO THAT ONLY MALE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WAS TO CONT EST THE LITIGATION REGARDING ENHANCED COMPENSATION. IN ANY CASE THIS EXPLANATIO N HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE AND THEREFORE PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BE EN LEVIED IN THIS CASE AND ACCORDINGLY WE DELETE THE SAME. 8 IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27.07. 2012 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27.07.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 4 5