Shri Chirag Harmanbhai Patel, Anand v. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda

ITA 869/AHD/2013 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 86920514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ADUPP4390F
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 869/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Shri Chirag Harmanbhai Patel, Anand
Respondent The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1,, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 29-04-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 28-04-2014
Next Hearing Date 28-04-2014
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 28-03-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD ! !! !. .. . . .. . #$ # % #$ # % #$ # % #$ # % BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) ITA NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 869/AHD/2013 2006-07 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL 101 MARUTI SHARNAM OPP. NANDBHUMI VALLABH VIDYANAGAR ROAD ANAND 380 001 PAN: ADUPP 4390 F THE DY.CIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 BARODA 2. 870/AHD/2013 2007-08 ASSESSEE REVENUE 3. 871/AHD/2013 2008-09 ASSESSEE REVENUE ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. MATHEWS SR.D.R. &' ( $ / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 28/04/2014 *+ ( $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/04/2014 #- / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 31/01/2013 PERTAINING T O ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGET HER AND ARE BEING ITA NOS.869 870 & 871/AHD/2013 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL VS.THE DY.CIT ASST.YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 - 2 - DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASST .YEAR 2006-07 I.E. ITA NO.869/AHD/2013 AS LEAD CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 1. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF RS.1 00 000 ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEAL ED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME EVEN IF THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE RETURNS FILED SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. TH E IMPUGNED LEVY OF PENALTY BEING BAD IN LAW AND IN FACTS DESERVES TO B E CANCELLED. 2. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD.A.O. IN THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE ORDER LEVYING THE PENA LTY BEING BAD IN LAW IN FACTS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. YOURS APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HERE-IN-ABOVE CONTAINED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT WHILE FRAMING A SSESSMENT U/S.153A(B) R.W.S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 THE ASSESSING OF FICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THEREBY THE AO LEVI ED A PENALTY OF RS.1 LAC ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.3 56 390/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME DECLARED U/S.153A AND U/S .139(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.869 870 & 871/AHD/2013 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL VS.THE DY.CIT ASST.YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 - 3 - 4. GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE BE FORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECOR D THE DECISION OF HONBLE COORDIANTE BENCH (ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD) IN IT(SS)A NO.298/AHD/2012 & ITA NO.1323/AHD/2012 FOR AYS 2008 -09 & 2009- 10 RESPECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PA TEL (HUF) VS. THE DCIT DATED 26/04/2013. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN A SPECIFIC FINDING WHETHER THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE DREW OUR ATTE NTION TOWARDS PARA-9 OF THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 17/03/2011. 5. ON THE CONTRARY LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER IS WELL-REASONED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS PARA-10 OF THE PENALTY ORDER. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGN ED ORDER HAS DISCUSSED VARIOUS CASE-LAWS IN HIS ORDER. FURTHER WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC FINDING WHETHER THE PENALTY HAS BEEN L EVIED ON THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO IN PARA-10 OF THE PENALTY ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE I SSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE HE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED A DEFAULT WITHIN THE ITA NOS.869 870 & 871/AHD/2013 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL VS.THE DY.CIT ASST.YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 - 4 - MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN CONCEALI NG THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALING INCOME TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.3 56 390/-. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE IS NO MERI T IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. THUS GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE REJECTED. 7. GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO INDEPE NDENT ADJUDICATION. 8. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.869/A HD/2013 FOR AY 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR AYS 2 007-08 & 2008- 09 I.E. ITA NOS.870 & 871/AHD/2013 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS IN HIS RESPECTI VE APPEALS:- ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS APPEAL ARE MUTUAL LY EXCLUSIVE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 1. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMI NG THE ACTION OF THE LD.A.O. IN LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS.5 00 000 ( RS.31 000/- FOR AY 2008-09) U/S.271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.16 92 930/- (RS.1 05 450 FOR AY 2008-09 (OFFERE D VOLUNTARILY IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A PLU S AN AMOUNT OF RS.60 000 (RS.1 401 FOR AY 2008-09) ADDED TO THE RE TURNED INCOME BEING THE BONUS INCOME ON MATURITY OF INVESTMENT IN POST OFFICE MONTHLY INCOME SCHEME (BEING THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS FOR AY 2008-09) ON THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS(S) THAT: I. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETU RNS ORIGINALLY FILED U/S.139 AND THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH OMISSION WAS A BONA FIDE MISTAK E AND NOT DELIBERATE. ITA NOS.869 870 & 871/AHD/2013 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL VS.THE DY.CIT ASST.YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 - 5 - II. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ADDITIONS (RS.60 000) (RS.1 40 1 FOR AY 2008-09). THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF PENALTY BEING BAD IN LAW AND IN FACTS IS REQUESTED TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV AH MEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD.A.O. IN THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IN THE ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THE SAME IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE ORDER LEVYING THE PENA LTY BEING BAD IN LAW AND IN FACTS DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO ADD ALTER AMEND OR SUBSTITUTE OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREINABOVE C ONTAINED. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AS WERE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BEARING IT A NO.869/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2006-07(SUPRA) WHEREIN WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES FOR THE SAME REASONING WE DISMISS THE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AYS 2007-08 & 2008-09. 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS O F THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( !.. ) ( ) #$ ( T.R. MEENA ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29/ 04 /2014 !..& .&../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS ITA NOS.869 870 & 871/AHD/2013 SHRI CHIRAG HARMANBHAI PATEL VS.THE DY.CIT ASST.YEARS 2006-07 2007-08 & 2008-09 - 6 - #- ( 01 2#1 #- ( 01 2#1 #- ( 01 2#1 #- ( 01 2#1 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 34 / THE APPELLANT 2. 0534 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 6() / THE CIT(A)- 5. 17 0& / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. 78 9' / GUARD FILE. #-& #-& #-& #-& / BY ORDER 51 0 //TRUE COPY// : :: :/ // / ; ; ; ; ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 28.4.14 (DICTATION-PAD 6-PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.4.14 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.29.4.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 29.4.14 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER