ACIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Perfect Forgings, Ludhiana

ITA 1024/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5372 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 04-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 80HHC; 80IB

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI D.K.SRIVASTAVA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1024/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 THE ACIT, VS. M/S PERFECT FORGINGS, CIRCLE-V, DHANDARI KALAN, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN NO. AABFP3268J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI RESPONDENT BY: NONE ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF C IT(A)-II LUDHIANA DATED 11.8.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 AGAINST THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GRO UNDS OF APPEAL- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DELETING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.20,00,000/- IMPOSED U/S 271 (1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II BE SET ASIDE AND THA T OF A.O. BE RESTORED. 2 3. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE NONE APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNM ENT. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE F IND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN EARLIER YEARS AND THE ISSUE BEI NG IDENTICAL TO THE EARLIER YEARS THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS HEARD EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE BUT THE DEPARTMENT WAS REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED D.R. 4. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIONS 80HHC AND 80IB OF THE ACT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80H HC WAS REDUCED AND DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB WAS REDUCED TO NIL . THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON THE SAID NON- DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/SS 80HHC/80IB OF THE AC T AND PENALTY OF RS.20 LACS WAS LEVIED. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE P ENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 80HHC OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE DEPB RECEIPTS IN VIEW OF THE AMENDMENT INTRODUCED BY TAXATION LAW S (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005, WHICH WAS INTRODUCED AFTER THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER THE ASSES SEE WAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT ON THE EXPORT INCENTIVES AND ALSO ON NON-FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS LEVIE D UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AND THE PENALTY LEVIED ON ITS DENIA L WAS ALSO DELETED BY CIT(A). 5. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON BOTH COUNTS OF DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB AND 80HHC OF THE ACT AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSEES OWN CASE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04 IN I.T.A.NOS. 3 777 & 778/CHD/2009. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER O F EVEN DATE HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENA LTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE BEFORE US BEING ID ENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID APPEALS, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PEN ALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.SRIVASTAVA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 21 ST JUNE, 2011 RATI COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4