Sh. Harinder Singh, Chandigarh v. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 865/CHANDI/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86521514 RSA 2013
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 865/CHANDI/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Harinder Singh, Chandigarh
Respondent ITO, Chandigarh
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 26-08-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.865/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI HARINDER SINGH VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER # 30 SECTOR 2-A WARD 1(3) CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN : ABZPA-9684C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S.NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 22.10.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) DATED 24.10.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ( 'THE ACT' FOR SHORT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 1 11 737/- UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS ARBITRA RY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR IN AS MUCH AS THERE HAS NEITHER BEEN ANY CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS SUCH THE ORDER IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT IS HANDICAPPED AND MEDICALLY MEN TALLY UNSTABLE. ALL MY AFFAIRS ARE LOOKED AFTER BY MY FAT HER. HE IS IN 2 ADVANCE AGE AND THEREFORE HIS EYESIGHT HAS BEEN EFF ECTED. THIS HAS RESULTED IN THE OMISSION OF THE ENTRY. 4. THAT THIS WAS NOTICED WHILE PRESENTING THE PASSBOOK BY HIM AND WAS OFFERED FOR ASSESSMENT. THE RETURN COULD NO T BE REVISED AS THE PERMISSIBLE PERIOD HAD EXPIRED. 5. THAT MY PAST RECORD WILL SHOW THAT I HAVE NEVER BEE N FOUND IN ANY OMISSION OF ANY INCOME. THE OMISSION IS UNIN TENTIONAL AND WITHOUT ANY MOTIVE OF CONCEALING ANY PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L BUT THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST PENAL TY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. 1 11 738/-. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E BEFORE US IS HANDICAPPED AND MEDICALLY MENTALLY UNSTABLE AS POI NTED OUT IN GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AFFAIRS O F THE ASSESSEE WERE LOOKED AFTER BY HIS FATHER. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS FILED AT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE INTEREST INCOME FROM BA NK WERE DECLARED AT RS. 142 038/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED SAVI NG BANK ACCOUNT AND NOTED THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE WAS RS. 503 664/- AND DIFFERENCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 361 606 /- WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD MISCALCULATED INTEREST CREDITED TO THE SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IN-TURN RESULTED INTO SHORT DECLARATION OF IN TEREST INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 111 737/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE A ND SHRI 3 J.S.NAGAR APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND PUT FORWARD THEIR CONTENTIONS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE R ETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 344 040/- AND AGRICUL TURE INCOME OF RS. 3 23 000/-. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT REFLECTED THAT THE TOTAL INTEREST EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATED TO RS. 503 644/- AS AGAINST INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 142 038/- DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT HE IS HANDICAPPED AND MEDICALLY MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND HIS TOTAL AFFAIRS WERE BEING LOOKED AFTER BY HIS FATHER WHO IN-TURN WAS IN ADVANCED STAGE AND HIS E YE-SIGHT HAD BEEN AFFECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVESAID CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS AN OMISSION IN DECLARING THE CORRECT BANK INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN LEVY OF ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCO UNT OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF BANK INTEREST NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E. IN THE PECULIAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE DIRE CT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- ( T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA C HOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 28 TH OCTOBER 2013 POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT(A) THE CIT DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHD.