ANUJA ANIL JOGLKEAR, MUMBAI v. ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6314/MUM/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 631419914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AEIPJ7731H
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 6314/MUM/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant ANUJA ANIL JOGLKEAR, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 5(1)(3), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 08-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 08-11-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 26-10-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH JM / I .T.A. NO. 6314 / MUM/ 20 1 6 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11 ) ANUJA ANIL JOGL EK AR R.NO. 146B AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. R D. MUMBAI PIN:400020 / VS. ITO 5(1)(3) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEIPJ 7731 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 .0 8 .2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 11 .2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH J M: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 02 .0 6 .201 6 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 10 MUMBAI [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2010 - 11 WHEREIN THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.90 000/ - LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.90 000/ - BY REJECTING THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION THAT THE NON ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KALPESH TURALKAR REVENUE BY: SHRI SAURAB H DESHPANDE (DR) ITA. NO.6314 /M/201 6 A.Y. 2010 - 11 2 DISCLOSURE OF SALARY OF RS.2 75 400/ - FROM C.S. INFOSYS LTD. AND S.B. INTEREST OF RS.4 563/ - REMAINED TO BE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN THR OUGH OVERSIGHT AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DEFRAUD THE DEPARTMENT BY NOT DISCLOSING THE SAME RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 248 ITR PAGE 306. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT DISCUSSING WHY THE CASE LAW SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE NON DISCLOSURE OF SALARY FROM C.S. INFOSYS PVT. LTD. OF RS.2 75 400/ - AND S.B. BANK INTEREST WAS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR DELETE ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.21 08 064/ - ON 15.03.2012. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 29.01.2013 RAISING THE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 75 400/ - ON AC COUNT OF SALARY AND RS.4 563/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING. NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF I.T. ACT DATED 29.01.2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. NO REPLY WAS SUBMITTED THEREAFTER AGAIN NOTICE DATED 14.05.2013 WAS ISSUED . AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY T HE PENALTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.90 000/ - WAS IMPOSED. T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY ORDER THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEAR D THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. ITA. NO.6314 /M/201 6 A.Y. 2010 - 11 3 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BONA FIDE ADVISE OF CA THEREFORE NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE I N VIEW OF LAW SETTLED IN LACHMAN CHATURBHUJ JAVA VS. RG NITSURE AND ORS. 132 ITR 631 AND PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPER 248 ITR 306 . IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREFORE NO PENA LTY IS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE LAW SETTLED IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUC T LTD. 322 ITR 158. ON THE OTHER HAND LD REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN QUESTION. AFTER DUE CONSIDERING OF THE ARGUMENT ADVANC ED BY LD. REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD W E NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE DIRECTOR OF TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. C.S. INFOCOM P. LTD. & C. S. INFOSYS P. LTD. S HE WAS RECEIVING THE SALARY FROM BOTH THE COMPANIES DUR ING THE YEAR O F ASSESSMENT . S HE RECEIVED THE SALARY FROM C.S. INFO COM PVT. LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.21 08 064/ - AND FROM C.S. INFOSYS PVT. LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.2 75 400/ - . S HE ONLY OFFER ED THE INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.21 08 064/ - I.E. INCOME FROM ONE COMPANY TO TAX HOWE VER FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM C.S. INFOSYS PVT. LTD. THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED UPON THE SAID INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.40 000/ - . THE C.A FILED THE RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE SAID SALARY WAS NOT SHOWN. WHEN THE SAID INCOME WAS ALREADY SUBJECT TO TDS NO DOUBT IN THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO REASON TO CONCEAL THE SAID INCOME. IT CAN ONLY BE HAPPENED DUE TO THE OMISSION OR MISTAKE . THE ASSESSEE ITA. NO.6314 /M/201 6 A.Y. 2010 - 11 4 WAS GETTING THE SALARY FROM TWO COMPANIES. HOWEVER SHE FAILED TO SHOW THE SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2 75 400/ - RECEIVED FROM C.S. INFOSYS PVT. LTD. IF SHE HAD AN INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE INCOME THEN SHE SHOULD CONCEAL THE SALARY /INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE M/S C.S. INFOCOM PVT. LTD . NO MALA FIDE SEEMS IN THIS CASE. IT IS A CASE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE ADVISE OF THE C.A IN WHICH THE C.A. FORGOT TO HIGHLIGHT THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. C.S. INFOCOM PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THE SAID CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A CASE IN WHICH TH E PENALTY IS LEVIABLE . IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO FIND IN SUPPORT OF LAW SETTLED IN LACHMAN CHATURBHUJ JAVA VS. RG NITSURE AND ORS. 132 ITR 631 AND PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPER 248 ITR 306 . THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DELET E THE PENALTY . 5 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY ORDERED TO BE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08 . 11 . 2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) (AMARJIT SINGH) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 08 .11 . 2017 V.P.SINGH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. ITA. NO.6314 /M/201 6 A.Y. 2010 - 11 5 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT MUMBAI 6. / G UARD FILE. / BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) / ITAT MUMBAI