Dr. M.Karuppaiah, Pattukkottai v. DCIT, Thanjavur

ITSSA 30/CHNY/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3021716 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AALPK1720A
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITSSA 30/CHNY/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Dr. M.Karuppaiah, Pattukkottai
Respondent DCIT, Thanjavur
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 10-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-12-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 29-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.(SS) A. NO. 30/MDS/2009 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1987-88 TO 1997-98 DR. M. KARUPPAIAH 18B KONPALAYAM PATTUKOTTAI. V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-I THANJAVUR. (PAN: AALPK1720A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) TRICHY IN APPEAL NO. 12/08-09 DATED 1 8-8-2009 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1987-88 TO 1997-98. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ANIRUDH RAI CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR BY PROFESSION AND THE I.T.(SS)A.NO.30/MDS/2009 2 SEARCH HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON 21.1.1997. THE ASSESS EE HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 66 984/- AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29.1.1999 ON AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 10 80 941/-. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AFTER VARIOUS APPEALS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ADOPTED AT ` 3 91 663/- AS MENTIONED IN PAGE 3 OF THE PENALTY O RDER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT MOST OF THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BE EN CONFIRMED WERE ESTIMATED ADDITIONS REPRESENTING AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEES SON AS ALSO BY DISBELIEV ING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE LOANS TAKEN FROM HIS WIFE FATHER AS ALSO HIS FRIEND SHRI LAKSHMANAN. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT EVE N THOUGH THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE THE TELESCOPING OF THE SAME AGAINST THE ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAD BEEN TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN PERMITTED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NONE OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. IT WAS THE SU BMISSION THAT IT IS ONLY ON DISBELIEVING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND ALSO ESTIMATI NG THE ASSESSEES INCOMES AND EXPENDITURES THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY JUST RE FERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEX TILE PROCESSORS (2008) 174 TAXMAN 171 (S.C) WHICH IN FACT HAD BEEN DILUTED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS L TD. REPORTED IN (2009) TIOL 63 (S.C.). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THAT THE PENA LTY AS LEVIED MAY BE CANCELLED. I.T.(SS)A.NO.30/MDS/2009 3 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PE RUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REGARD TO THE LEVY OF P ENALTY SHOWS THAT OTHER THAN SAYING THAT THE ADDITIONS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL NOTHING ELSE HAS BEEN SAID. TRUE MENS REA MAY NOT BE PROVED FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY. STILL WHAT IS EXPECTED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS THAT THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE MUST BE SHOWN TO BE PLAUSIBLE OR FALSE. JUST BY DI SBELIEVING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PENALTY CANNOT BE BLINDLY LEVIED. THIS HA S BEEN RE-ITERATED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT INCLUDING TH E DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158 (SC). FURTHER THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY BEING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF DHARM ENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS REFERRED TO SUPRA WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T HAS HELD THAT PENALTY IS A CIVIL LIABILITY WOULD NOT BE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN ALL CASES ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE RAJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA. IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE NOT PLAUSIBLE AND AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE AND AS IT I S NOTICED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS A BONA FIDE CLAIM WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY IS NOT L EVIABLE I.T.(SS)A.NO.30/MDS/2009 4 IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PEN ALTY AS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) STAN DS CANCELLED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 10/12/1 0. SD/- SD/- (DR. O. K. NARAYANAN) (GEORGE MATHAN) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 10 TH DECEMBER 2010. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE