Sh. Parminder Singh,, Sunam v. ITO,, Sunam

ITA 989/CHANDI/2010 | 1999-2000
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 98921514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN BBRPS3471G
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 989/CHANDI/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Parminder Singh,, Sunam
Respondent ITO,, Sunam
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 28-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 28-01-2011
Assessment Year 1999-2000
Appeal Filed On 02-07-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: B BENCH: CH ANDIGARH BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D K SRIVASTAVA AM AND HONBLE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JM ITA NO. 989/CHANDI/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 PARMINDER SINGH V I.T.O. WARD SUNAM L/H JARNAIL SINGH (DECEASED) AND SMT. SOMA DEVI (DECEASED) SUNAM PAN: BBRPS 3471 G (APPELLANT-ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY: SMT. JAISHREE SHARMA ORDER D K SRIVASTAVA: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 16.4.2010 ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WORT HY CIT(A) PATIALA IS UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED I .T.O. SUNAM. THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. 2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE PENALTY WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS NOT TIME BARRED. 3 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WORT HY CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LEARNED I.T.O. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON THE SECOND LEGAL HEIR. 4 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WORTH Y CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DISALLOWED THE GROUND AND IGNORE THE FACTS THAT APP ELLANT WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS INVESTED U/S 54B OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND NO TAX HAS TO BE LEVIED. THEREF ORE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED I.T.O. SUNAM DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SM T. SOMA DEVI (DECEASED) SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE SULTANWIND URBAN (AMR ITSAR) FOR RS.5 37 500/- ON 24.4.1998 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APP EAL IN HER LIFE TIME. SMT. SOMA DEVI UTILISED THE SALE PROCEEDS THEREOF IN PURCHASI NG AGRICULTURAL LAND IN VILLAGE BHISANPURA TEHSIL SUNAM ON 3.11.1998 FOR A SUM OF R S.15 21 094/-. INSTEAD OF PURCHASING THE SAID LAND IN HER OWN NAME SHE PURCH ASED THE LAND IN THE NAME OF HER SON WHO UPON HER DEMISE SOON AFTER I.E. 11.5.20 00 SUCCEEDED HER. SHE HOWEVER COULD NOT FILE HER RETURN ALTHOUGH THE PERIOD FOR F ILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(4) WAS AVAILABLE. RESULTANTLY THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 148 CALLING UPON HER LEGAL HEIR TO PARMINDER SINGH SUNAM 989/CHANDI/2010 2 FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE LEGAL HEIR. THE LEGAL HEIR CLAIMED RELIEF U/S 54B ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND WAS UTILISED IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER SALE OF LAND AND THEREFORE CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS NOT EXIGIBLE. TH E AO HOWEVER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE LAND SO PURCHAS ED WAS NOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THE NAME OF HER SON. APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THIS TRIBUNAL DI D NOT MEET WITH SUCCESS. 3. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAD INIT IATED PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IT IS IN PURSUANCE OF THOSE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO. IT IS THE CASE O F THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME BUT AL SO CLAIMED RELIEF U/S 54B WITHOUT ANY LEGAL FOUNDATION. ACCORDING TO HIM THE ASSESSEE HA S DONE SO TO CONCEAL HIS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND THEREFORE HE CONSIDERED THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE FIT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AND CONSEQUENTLY LEVIED THE I MPUGNED PENALTY. 4. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDE AND ONE THING WHICH IS CRYSTAL CLEAR AS PER LAW THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE PU RCHASED IN ASSESSEES OWN NAME AND NOT IN THE NAME OF ANY OTHER MEMBER. THERE FORE THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS AND I HELD THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY. 5. IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SMT. SOMA DEVI COULD NOT FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME WITHI N THE PERIOD PERMISSIBLE U/S 139(4) AS SHE HAD LEFT FOR HER HEAVENLY ABODE. AS REGARDS THE DENIAL OF RELIEF U/S 54B HE SUBMITTED THAT SMT. SOMA DEVI WAS UNDER BONA-FIDE B ELIEF THAT PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF HER SON BY UTILIZING SALE PROCEEDS OF S ALE OF LAND WOULD NOT BE A BAR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE MERE REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 54B WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 6. IN REPLY THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES CAREFULLY CONSID ERED THEIR SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SMT. SOMA DEVI SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR A SUM OF RS. 5 37 500/-. SHE UTILISED THE AFORESAID SALE PROCEEDS IN PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF HER SON INSTEAD OF HER OWN NAME AS S HE WAS IN THE EVENING OF HER LIFE. SMT. SOMA DEVI DIED WITHOUT FILING THE RETURN OF IN COME THOUGH THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS AVAILABLE U/S 139(4). THER E IS NO DENIAL THAT SHE HAD UTILISED PARMINDER SINGH SUNAM 989/CHANDI/2010 3 THE SALE PROCEEDS IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND IN THE NAME OF HER SON. BEING A LADY IN HER ADVANCED AGE SHE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWA RE OF THE NICETIES OF LAW THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE PURCHASED IN HER OWN NAME. IT IS OUT OF THIS IMPRESSION THAT SHE UTILIZED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN PURCHASING T HE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF HER SON INSTEAD OF HER OWN NAME. MERE REJECTION OF CLAIM U/ S 54B ON THE AFORESAID FACTS DOES NOT IN OUR OPINION GIVE RISE TO IMPOSITION OF PENA LTY. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(A) IS CANCELLED. APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON JANUARY 2011. (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (D K SRIVASTAVA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH: THE JANUARY 2011 SURESH COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT SHRI PARMINDER SINGH 2. THE RESPONDENT ITO WARD SUNAM 3. THE CIT PATIALA 4. THE CIT(A) PATIALA 5. THE D.R INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT CHANDIGARH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH