ITO, Ward-4(4), Hyderabad v. Smt. Kancherla Sujani, Hyderabad

ITA 590/HYD/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 59022514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AFGPK5183H
Bench Hyderabad
Appeal Number ITA 590/HYD/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant ITO, Ward-4(4), Hyderabad
Respondent Smt. Kancherla Sujani, Hyderabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B ' HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AKBER BASHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.590/HYD/11 : AS STT. YEAR 2006-07 INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) HYDERABAD V/S. SMT. KANCHERLA SUJANI HYDERABAD ( PAN - AFGPK 5183 H ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.V.PRASADA REDDY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMA SHARMA YAMARTHI O R D E R PER G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AS IT HAD DEPOSITED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN FIXED DEPOSIT WITH T HE BANK AND NOT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME NOTIFIED FOR THE PURPO SE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY EXEMPTION UNDER S.5 4 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT O F INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THE LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS JUSTIFIED. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE ITA NO.590/HYD/11 SMT. KANCHARLA SUJANI HYDERABAD 2 ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY MATERIAL FACTS RELEV ANT FOR ITS ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS INV ESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS IN FIXED DEPOSITS INSTEAD OF IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME WITH THE BANK DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD ON BEHALF O F THE REVENUE TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY MALA FIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION UNDER S.54. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT IN A FIXED DEPOSIT WITH ANDHRA BANK FOR CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AN D CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT SHO ULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME INSTEAD OF A FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK AND THE MISTAKE WAS BONA FIDE AND DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. FOR THIS BONA FIDE MIS TAKE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED DENIAL OF ITS CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNDER S.54 OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUP PRESSED ANY MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MISLEAD THE DEPARTMENT BY DEPOSITING THE AMOUNT IN FIXED DEPOSIT AND NOT IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME WITH THE BANK. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTED WITH THE CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT A ND HAS DEPOSITED THE SAME IN BANK WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED HER HOUSE BY INVESTING THE MONEY FROM T HE FIXED DEPOSIT ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET IN APRIL 20 06. MISTAKE OF DEPOSITING THE CAPITAL GAINS AMOUNT IN FIXED DEPOSIT INSTEAD O F IN CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME SEEMS TO BE BONA FIDE AND DUE TO LACK OF KNO WLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF LAW. THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE ITA NO.590/HYD/11 SMT. KANCHARLA SUJANI HYDERABAD 3 ASSESSEE HAS NOT HIDDEN OR CONCEALED ANY FACT AND T HE INVESTMENT MADE IN AN INCORRECT ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK WAS DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WH ATSOEVER TO INDICATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CANCELLED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE REJECTED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22.7.2011 SD/- SD/- (AKBER BASHA) (G.C.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DT/- 22ND JULY 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. KANCHERLA SUJANI D.NO.3 - 6 - 116 HIMAYATNAGAR HYDERABAD 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4) HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) V HYDERABAD. 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - IV HYDERABAD 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ITAT HYDERABAD. B.V.S.