Shri Kamlesh Natvarlal Parmar,, Ahmedabad v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(4), Old Ward-13(4),, Ahmedabad

ITA 3586/AHD/2015 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 358620514 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN AJMPP6994R
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 3586/AHD/2015
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Shri Kamlesh Natvarlal Parmar,, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 7(1)(4), Old Ward-13(4),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 04-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 04-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 05-07-2016
Next Hearing Date 05-07-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 21-12-2015
Judgment Text
I.T.A. NO . 3586 /AHD/201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH SMC AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] I.T.A. NO. 3586 /A HD/ 20 1 5 ASSESSMENT Y EAR : 200 9 - 10 KAMLESH NATWARLAL PARMAR .... . ...... . ... . APPELLANT 43 SHYAMSATYA BUNGLOWS NEAR SATYAM E V HOSPITAL CHANDKHEDA AHMEDABAD 38 2 424. [ PAN: A JMPP 6994 R ] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 7(1)(4) AHMEDABAD. ... ............ . RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: P RITESH SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT ANTONY PARIATH FOR THE RESPONDEN T D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 05 .0 7 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 04.10.2016 O R D E R 1. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 22 DAYS BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED A CONDONATION PETITION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. HAVING PERUS ED THE PETITION AND HAVING HEA R D RIVAL CONTENTION ON THE SAME I AM INCLINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE DELAY WA S DUE TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAVING BEEN SERVED ON THE NEIGHBOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE PHYSICALLY RECEIVED THE SAID ORDER VERY LATE. DELAY CONDONED. 2. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23 RD JULY 2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF R S . 6 30 800/ - IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 . I.T.A. NO . 3586 /AHD/201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 2 OF 4 3 . THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS AGGREGATING TO RS.20 50 700/ - ON THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THESE DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED A S FOLLOWS : - SOURCE NO. SOURCE PARTICULARS AMOUNT RS. DOCUMENT SUBMITTED TO AO 1 SALARY INCOME FROM LAST 18 YEARS ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF 15 YEARS 402741 SALARY CERTIFICATE INCOME TAX RETURN & STATEMENT OF INCOME A.Y. 2009/10 2 FATHER MR. NATVARLAL MANGLDAS PARMER HE WAS GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WORKED WITH HEALTH & MEDICAL SERVICES AND MEDICAL EDUCATION AT CIVIL HOSPITAL FOR MANY YEARS. HE RETIRED IN 1998 AND THEREAFTER WORKED INDEPENDENTLY. HE HAS KEPT HUGE CASH TO MEET ANY MEDICAL EMERGENCY. HE DIED IN 2006 INTESTATE (WITHOUT MAKING ANY WILL). ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.6 00 000/ - BY WAY OF INHERITANCE. 600000 PENSION PAYMENT DECLARATION CERTIFICATE AND DEATH CERTIFICATE. 3 MOTHER SMT. PANIBEN NATVARLAL PARMAR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WORKED WITH KAMDAR RAJYA VIMA YOJNA ESIC DEPARTMENT FOR MANY YEARS. RETIRED IN 2002. SHE GAVE GIFTS OF RS.5 00 000/ - TO ASSESSEE IN AGGREGATE. [RS.1 00 000/ - ON 06/02/2009 RS.3 00 000/ - ON 21/02/2009 AND RS.1 00 000/ - ON 25/03/2009.] 500000 PENSION PAYMENT DECLARATION CERTIFICATE ELECTION CARD PHOTOCOPY OF BANK PASSBOOK PHOTOCOPY O F GIFT DEED. GOLD SALE BILLS. 4 FATHER IN LAW MR. GIRDHARBHAI MAGANBHAI LEUVA HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM LAND SITUATED AT ZULASAN DIST. KADI. HE GAVE GIFT OF RS.5 00 000/ - TO ASSESSEE. [RS.2 50 000/ - ON 06/01/2009 RS.2 50 000/ - ON 12/01/2 009.] 500000 ELECTION CARD 7 X 12 ABSTRACT GIFT DEEDS SALES BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS BAJRA WHEAT JOWAR RAJAGRA ETC. TOTAL 2002741 I.T.A. NO . 3586 /AHD/201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 3 OF 4 05. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE/LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21/11/2011 REQUESTING HIM TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO HIS TOTAL IN COME IN A BSENCE OF ANY CLEAR AND CONCR ETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 4. HOWEVER NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ABOVE EXPLANATION QUANTUM ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND WHEN MA T TER REACHED THIS TRIBUNAL THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. IT IS IN THIS BACKDRO P THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN IMPOSED AND THE SAME HA S BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT ( A ) AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 5 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6 . I HAVE NOTED THAT WHILE THE EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE BEEN REJECTED ON MERITS BY THE T RIBUNAL THESE EXPLANATIONS ARE RE ASONABLE EXPLANATIONS SO FAR AS CONSIDERATIONS FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED. AS LONG AS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REASONABLE EVEN THOUGH NOT PROVED TO THE HILT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. AS I S A Y SO I AM REMINDED OF THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TION MADE BY THE FULL BENCH OF H ON BLE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . NATHULAL AGARWAL & SONS (153 ITR 292) WHICH WERE LATER APPROVED BY H ON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUSSADI LAL R AM BHAROSE (165 ITR 14) AS FOLLOWS : - AS TO THE NATURE OF THE EXPLANATION TO BE RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IT SEEMS PLAIN ON PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS NOT THE LAW THAT THE MOMENT ANY FANTASTIC OR UNACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN THE BURDEN PLACED UPON HIM W OULD BE DISCHARGED AND THE PRESUMPTION REBUTTED. IT IS NOT THE LAW AND PERHAPS HARDLY CAN BE THAT ANY AND EVERY EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ACCEPTED. IN MY VIEW THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDANCE OF PENALTY MUST BE AN ACC EPTABLE EXPLANATION. HE MAY NOT PROVE WHAT HE ASSERTS TO THE HILT POSITIVELY I.T.A. NO . 3586 /AHD/201 5 A SSESSMENT Y EAR: 200 9 - 10 PAGE 4 OF 4 BUT AS A MATTER OF FACT MATERIALS MUST BE BROUGHT ON THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT WHAT HE SAYS IS REASONABLY VALID. 7. WHEN I SEE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE LIGH T I FIND THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIMA FACIE REASONABLE EXPLANATION . THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT TO THE HILT BUT THAT ASPECT OF THE MATTER AS I HAVE NOTED ABOVE IS NOT REALLY DECISIVE SO FAR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) IS CONCERNED. 8. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE I UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PENALTY OF RS.6 30 800/ - ACCORDINGLY STANDS DELETED. 9 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED . PRON OUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: THE 4 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPEL LANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES AHMEDABAD