Dy. CIT,Central Circle-3,, Nashik v. Shri Rameshwar Lalchand Attal, Nashik

ITA 839/PUN/2009 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 83924514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ATTAL4086M
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 839/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Dy. CIT,Central Circle-3,, Nashik
Respondent Shri Rameshwar Lalchand Attal, Nashik
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 23-02-2011
Next Hearing Date 23-02-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 13-07-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES B : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JM AND SHRI G.S. PANNU AM I.T.A. NO. 839 TO 841/PN/2009 A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 & 2003-04 DY. CIT CENT. CIR. 3 NASIK APPELLANT VS. SHRI RAMESHWAR LALCHAND ATTAL 4086 MAIN ROAD YEOLA DIST. NASIK PAN ADPA 9850 H RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.C. LUAVA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SUNIL GANOO ORDER PER BENCH THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-I NASIK IDENT ICALLY DATED 22-4-2009 ON THE POINT OF DELETION OF PENALTY IMPOS ED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUN TING TO RS. 4 80 643/- RS. 2 10 260/- AND RS. 2 08 442/- FOR A .Y. 1999- 00 2000-01 AND 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE ARE COMMON FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATI NG TO THE SAME ASSESSEEE THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING ITA NO. 839 TO 841/PN/09 RAMESHWARI ATTAL A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 & 2002-03 2 DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 839/PN/2009 FOR A.Y. 1999-00 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O AT RS. 4 80 643/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 1999-00. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THA T NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS TO BE LEVIED IN RESPECT OF INCOME WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT; 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SOURCES OF FIXED DEPOSITS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEES HUF WAS POSSIBLE AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO SUCH EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO JUSTIFY T HE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF O NION TRADING. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF T HE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 6-8-2003. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30-9-1999 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 10 61 760/-. SUBSEQUENTLY IN RESPON SE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED ANOT HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 6-2-2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 26 53 605/- OFFERING THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN ADDITION TO CAPIT AL GAIN OF RS. 14 150/-. ITA NO. 839 TO 841/PN/09 RAMESHWARI ATTAL A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 & 2002-03 3 A) INVESTMENT IN FIXED DEPOSITS RS. 11 20 200/- B) INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS RS. 4 02 080/- C) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS RS. 14 150/- D) OTHER INCOME RS. 91 000/- 5. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOM E AT RS. 26 68 622/- AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 867/- TO THE INCOME RETURNED U/S 153A ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE I N BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16 06 862/- WHICH WA S DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE HUF OF FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AN D THE ORIGINAL HUF WAS PARTITIONED ON 17-4-1955 AND THE H UF OF ASSESSEES FATHER RECEIVED LAND OF 90 ACRES WHO HAS THEN DISTRIBUTED THE SAID LAND TO HIS THREE SONS INCLUDI NG THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HIS HU F HAS EARNED SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAI D ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL HOLDING WHICH WAS INVESTED IN FIXED DE POSITS AND HENCE THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE FROM EXPLAINED SOURCE S AND INTEREST INCOME BELONGED TO HUF AND NOT TO THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT TH E PENALTY ITA NO. 839 TO 841/PN/09 RAMESHWARI ATTAL A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 & 2002-03 4 CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE INCOME EARNED BY SOME OTHER PERSON. SIMILARLY PENALTY IS ALSO NOT LEVIABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1B TO SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVEST MENT MADE IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND INTEREST THEREON. 7. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS HUF OWNED SUBSTANTIAL ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS INVESTED IN FIXED DEP OSITS OVER THE YEARS BELONGED TO THE HUF AND NOT TO THE ASSESS EE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY APPEARS TO BE PLAUSIBLE AND BO NAFIDE. FURTHER PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE INCOME EAR NED BY SOME OTHER PERSON IN DIFFERENT CAPACITY. IN THIS VI EW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BONAFIDE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF EX PLANATION 1B TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE INCOME OFFER ED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN FIXED DEPOSITS AND INTEREST THEREON. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSS ION AND CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) AND THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. ITA NO. 840 AND 841/PN/2009 FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND 20 02-03 ITA NO. 839 TO 841/PN/09 RAMESHWARI ATTAL A.Y. 1999-00 2000-01 & 2002-03 5 8. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS FOR THESE TWO YEARS ARE S IMILAR TO THOSE FOR A.Y. 1999-00. SO FOLLOWING THE REASONING GIVEN WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1999-00 WE HOLD THAT T HE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) DO NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE AT OUR HAND. THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AR E DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 31 ST MARCH 2011 ANKAM COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEES 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT - I NASIK 4. CIT(A) I NASIK 5. ITAT D.R. B BENCH PUNE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL