Prateek Juyal, Dehradun v. DCIT, Dehradun

ITA 4766/DEL/2015 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 476620114 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN ADVPJ2863Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4766/DEL/2015
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Prateek Juyal, Dehradun
Respondent DCIT, Dehradun
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2017
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 20-07-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4766 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. 200 6 - 07 ITA NO. 4767 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. 200 9 - 10 ITA NO. 4768 /DEL/201 5 A.Y. 20 10 - 11 SRI PRATEEK JUYAL 204 SILVER OAK AP PT. CURZON ROAD DEHRADUN PAN: ADVPJ2863Q VS . D CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 13A SUBHASG ROAD DEHRADUN (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. VIJAY AGARWAL CA RESPONDENT BY SH. ATIQ AHMAD SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 2 3 RD NOVEMBER 2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 29 TH NOVEMBER 2017 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI JUDICIAL MEMBER T HE PRESENT PENALTY APPEALS HA VE BEEN FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) DE H RADUN DATED 14/05/15 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 2 OF 8 ITA . N O. 4766/DEL/2015 THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1 . THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT S CASE IN CONF IRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.2 08 000/ - IMPOSED BY THE LD.AO U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE HIS RIGHT TO ADD TO DELETE FROM AMEND ALTER OR MODIFY HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA . N O. 4767/DEL/2015 THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1 . THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT S CASE IN CONFIRMING THE I MPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.1 23 900/ - IMPOSED BY THE LD.AO U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE HIS RIGHT TO ADD TO DELETE FROM AMEND ALTER OR MODIFY HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. ITA . N O. 4768/DEL/2015 THE APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO OBJECT TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER APPEALED AGAINST ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1 . THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT S CASE IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.1 28 400/ - IMPOSED BY THE LD.AO U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT ON THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RESERVE HIS RIGHT TO ADD TO DELETE FROM AMEND ALTER OR MODIFY HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 3 OF 8 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A (1) (B) /143 (3) OF THE A CT ON 28/03/13 THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: S.NO. ASST.YR. ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31/08/12 ASSESSED INCOME 1. 2006 - 07 RS. 9 90 390/ - RS.16 08 200/ - 2. 2009 - 10 RS. 5 07 600/ - RS. 9 08 440/ - 3. 2010 - 11 RS. 15 75 640/ - RS.24 45 290/ - DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IT WAS OBSERVED BY LD. AO THAT THE SEARCH TEAM HAD SEIZED VARIOUS DIARIES PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT YEARS CONTAINING DETAILS OF VARIOUS RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES FROM THE RESIDEN CE OF ASSESSEE. AGAINST THESE DIARIES ASSESSEE MADE A DISCLOSURE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: S.NO. ASST.YR. DISCLOSURES MADE 1. 2006 - 07 RS. 6 17 814/ - 2. 2009 - 10 RS. 4 00 840/ - 3. 2010 - 11 RS. 4 15 427/ - ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF DISCLOSURE AS ADMITTEDLY IT PERTAINED TO VARIOUS YEARS DETAILING RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES. LD. AO THUS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT DISCLOSE D IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED. HE THUS LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE A CT. THEREAFTER ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 4 OF 8 S.NO. ASST.YR. PENALTY LEVIED 1. 2006 - 07 RS.2 08 000/ - 2. 2009 - 10 RS.1 23 900/ - 3. 2010 - 11 RS.1 28 400/ - 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER LEVIED ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY LD. AO FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HELD AS UNDER: 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE NOT ONLY DID THE ASSESSEE NOT INCLUDE THE RECEIPTS CONTAINED IN THE SAID DIARY IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH HE ALSO DID NOT INCLUDE THEM IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A(1)(A) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE AO ASKED ABOUT HOW THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN HIS INCOME THAT HE CHOSE TO SURRENDER THE AMOUNT. THUS HE HAS CLEARLY CONCEALED HIS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECT ION 271(1)(C ) AND AS THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THE DETAILS WERE MAINTAINED IN THE DIARY QUITE METICULOUSLY SO THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HIM TO ESTIMATE HIS INCOME IGNORING THE ENTRIES THEREIN. HENCE THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 273B OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS THEREFORE JUSTIFIED AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 5 OF 8 INADVERTENTLY THE EXPENSES AND THE PERSONAL INCOME RECORDED IN THE DIARIES WERE LEFT OUT TO BE CALCULATED BY HIS ACCOUNTANT WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT HAD THE SEARCH NOT TAKEN PLACE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE SURRENDERED THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE DURING THE SEARCH THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPO NSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 15 3A DID NOT I NCLUDE SURRENDERED INCOME. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE RECEIPTS AND PAID TAX ON THEM. 6. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH THE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE R ECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IT IS OBSERVED THAT LD. AR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH ABSTAINED ASSESSEE FROM DISCLOSING THE INCOME RECORDED IN THE DIARIES SEIZED . 7. IN OUR OPINION CONCEALMENT TAKES PLACE ON THE DATE WHEN RETURN IS FILED WITHOUT DISCLOSING FULL AND TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THAT YEAR AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON BLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJMOHAN VS. CIT REPORTED IN 120 ITR 1. HON BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT LAW WH ICH PREVAILS ON DATE OF FILING SUCH RETURN WOULD BE APPLICABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY . FURTHER A S CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 358 ITR 593 THERE CANNOT BE ANY SURRENDER OF INCOME WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION OR TO B U Y PEACE CHANNELIZE ENERGY ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 6 OF 8 AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORKING AND TO MAKE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT . 7.1. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE S DO NOT RELEASE ASSESSEE FROM MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN ASSESSEE RETURNS A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME HE CAN BE ABSOLVED FROM PENALTY. AS ALREADY STATED THE PENALTY IS LEVIED WITH REFERENCE TO ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND NOT WI TH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE CONSEQUENT TO THE DISCLOSURE BY ASSESSEE. 7.2. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO INFIRMITY COULD BE FOUND IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE FOR ALL T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION STAND DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 T H NOVEMBER 2017. S D / - S D / - (R .S. SYAL) (BEENA A PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 2 9 T H NOVEMBER 2017. *MV ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 7 OF 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORD ER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI BENCHES NEW DELHI ITA NOS. 4766 - 4767 - 4768/DEL/15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 2009 - 10 AND 2010 - 11 SH.PRATEEK JUYAL DEHRADUN PAGE 8 OF 8 DATE 1. DRAGON DICTATION 2 7 .11.2017 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 2 8 .11.2017 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO SRPS/PS 5. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 2 9 . 1 1 . 2 0 1 7 6. FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 7. ORDER UPLOADED