I T O WD - 3(3),, Latur v. SMT. SARASWATIDEVI SHRINIWAS KALANTRI,, Latur

ITA 696/PUN/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 69624514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ADYPK3843L
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 696/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant I T O WD - 3(3),, Latur
Respondent SMT. SARASWATIDEVI SHRINIWAS KALANTRI,, Latur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 23-03-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 11-06-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 696/PN/2009 : A.Y. 2004-05 I.T.O. WARD 3(3) LATUR APPELLANT VS. SMT. SARASWATIDEVI S. KALANTRI C/O. QUALITY AGRO MARKET YARD LATUR PAN ADYPK 3843 L RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI M.K. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD DATED 3-3-2009 FOR A .Y. 2004-05 ON THE POINT OF CANCELLATION OF PENALTY LEV IED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOU NTING TO RS. 2 20 027/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME OF RS 62 541/- AFTER CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 80-IB(11A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 143(3) DENYING THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT PAGE 2 OF 4 ITA NO. 696/PN/2009 SMT. SARASWATIDEVI KALANTRI A.Y. 2004-05 MERELY DENIAL OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED REASON FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. HOWEVE R THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPOSED A MINIMUM PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 20 027/-. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) CANCELLED THE I MPUGNED PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE THE LEARN ED DR RELIED N THE ORDER OF THE A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY WAY OF VARIOUS CONTENTIONS. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WHILE CANCELING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OBSERVED THAT ON SIMILAR SET O F FACTS THE PENALTY CAME TO BE CANCELLED BY THE CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO THING ON RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS MALA FIDE WITH AN INTENTION TO REDUCE ASSESSEES INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS MALAFIDE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80-IB(11) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIED O N THE GIVEN FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF INFOR MATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH INDICATES THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS A MATTER OF DENIAL OF CLAIM. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE A WRONG CLAIM. THIS PER SE CANNO T CALL PAGE 3 OF 4 ITA NO. 696/PN/2009 SMT. SARASWATIDEVI KALANTRI A.Y. 2004-05 FOR LEVYING OF PENALTY UNLESS AND UNTIL IT IS PROVE D THAT THE CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE DELIBERATELY BY FILING INACCURA TE OR FALSE PARTICULARS OF THE CLAIM. 4. IT IS FURTHER PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE RELI ANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS MISPLACED INASMUCH AS IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. GATES FOAM & RUBBER CO. (1973) 91 ITR 67 (K ER) THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HINDUSTA N CONDUCTION (P) LTD. (996) 134 TAXMAN 128 (BOM-TRIB) THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY MADE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80-J CONSCIOUSLY AND KNOWING LEGAL POSITION. IN THE CAS E BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80-IB(11 A) WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY PART OF HER INC OME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF BECAUSE AS SESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS REJECTED. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) IN CANCELING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. WE UPHOLD THE SAME . 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 23 RD MARCH 2011 ANKAM PAGE 4 OF 4 ITA NO. 696/PN/2009 SMT. SARASWATIDEVI KALANTRI A.Y. 2004-05 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT- (A) AURANGABAD 4. THE CIT- AURANGABAD 5. THE D.R B BENCH PUNE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE