Maruti Nutrious Food Ltd, Ahmedabad V. CIT (A), Ahmedabad-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 1099/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9988 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 17-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 68; 271(1)(c); 143(3)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरणआयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठअहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ अहमदाबाद 瀈यायपीठ, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबादअहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । ।। । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1099/Ahd/2018 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Maruti Nutritious Food Ltd. Maruti House Opp. Air India, Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 009 Vs The ITO Ward-2(1)(4) Ahmedabad PAN: AACCM 7574 M / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : -None- Revenue by : Shri Ravindra Bokde, CIT-DR /Date of Hearing : 18 /10/2022 /Date of Pronouncement: 21 /10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 11/06/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: The order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) -2 [CIT(A)] is bad in law as well on facts on the following grounds; (1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in levying penalty of Rs.6,19,240 on enhancement of income Rs.20,04,000 U/s.68 in his appellate order dt. 28/09/2017. In as much as the amount of enhancement made is not credit or deposit U/s.68 & same is not claimed as deduction in P&L A/c. ITA No. 1099/Ahd/2018 Maruti Nutrious Food Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2013-14 2 (2) The learned CIT(A) had already confirmed disallowance made by A.O. of Depreciation of Rs.12,02,400 on assets/Computers/Printers purchased of Rs.20,04,000. Therefore, Enhancement of purchase of assets is not receipt of money of deposit/credit U/s.68. Hence penalty U/s.271(1)(c) is wrongly levied. 3. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2016 by making addition of the claim of depreciation of Rs. 12,67,282/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) vide order dated 28.09.2017 enhanced the income relating to bogus credit of Rs. 20,04,000/- in the name of M/s K. Shyamlal & Co. in the books of accounts u/s 68 of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of credit of Rs. 20,04,000/- in the name of M/s K. Shyamlal & Co. as the credit was not found to be genuine. The CIT(A) vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied penalty on account of credit of Rs. 20,04,000/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice at the address given in Form No. 36 of the appeal memo. No new address was intimated to the registry by the Assessee. Hence, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions of the assessee reproduced by the CIT(A) in the order as submissions before us. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the penalty order passed by the CIT(A). ITA No. 1099/Ahd/2018 Maruti Nutrious Food Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2013-14 3 7. Heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on credit of Rs. 20,04,000 found to be non genuine by the CIT(A) thereby enhancing the said amount from the original assessment order dated 18.03.2016. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. But after going through the records, it can be seen that the said amount was credited in the books of accounts whether it is genuine or not cannot be the test of determining that the said particulars were inaccurately furnished by the Assessee before the Revenue authorities. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not sustain. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21 st October, 2022 at Ahmedabad. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad, Dated 21/10/2022 . ी. य , . . ./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS ITA No. 1099/Ahd/2018 Maruti Nutrious Food Ltd. vs. ITO AY 2013-14 4 ! "# /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. "!ी $% / The Appellant 2. &य$% / The Respondent. 3. '(')* य य + / Concerned CIT 4. य य + )"!ी (/ The CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad 5. . /ीय )* , य "!ी य ")* , ज /DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. / 12 3 /Guard file. / BY ORDER, &य ! //True Copy// ह य !'जी (Asstt. Registrar) य "!ी य ")* , ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation (word processed by Hon’ble JM in her computer) : 19.10.22 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member. : 20.10.22 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 Dictating 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. : 21.10.22 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk. : 21.10.22 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk. : 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order. : 10. Date of Despatch of the Order :