Sh. Shambhu Kumar, Ludhiana V. ACIT, C-V, Ludhiana

ITA 1210/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6139 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2018
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

S , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B , CHANDIGARH . . , !!'# , $%& BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1210/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01 SH.SHAMBU KUMAR PROP. M/S JINDAL ALLOYS, KANGAWAL ROAD, VPO JUGIANA, LUDHIANA. THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-V, LUDHIANA. ./ PAN NO.AIHPK8666P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADV & ASHOK GOYAL, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 24.01.2019 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.01.2019 %' /ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.6.2017 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A). 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L RELATES TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.30,0 00/- BY THE LD.CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTSET INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ITA NO.1210/CHD/2017 A.Y.2000-01 2 PARA 2.3 OF THE LD.CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ISSUE RELATIN G TO ENHANCEMENT OF THE INCOME HAD BEEN DISCUSSED. THE LD.CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEC LARE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,00,000/- ON THE BASIS O F ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS IN THE YEAR 2006, WHICH WAS LATER ON CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION RELATING TO PENALTY BY THE CUSTO MS AUTHORITY WAS MADE ON 6.1.2006, THEREFORE, THE ADDI TION, IF ANY, WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. OR T HE LD.CIT(A) THAT WAS TO BE MADE FOR THE PERIOD RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND NOT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2000-01. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED STATED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIM ILAR FACTS HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH ES, CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO.958/CHD/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YE AR 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJEV GUPTA, LUDHIANA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-V, LUDHIANA VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.201 7, (COPY OF THE SAID ORDER WAS FURNISHED, WHICH IS PLA CED ON RECORD). 5. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. DR ALTHOUGH SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) B UT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. IT IS ITA NO.1210/CHD/2017 A.Y.2000-01 3 NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR F ACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITAT CHAN DIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CA SE OF SHRI SANJEV GUPTA, LUDHIANA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-V, LUD HIANA WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN VIDE PARAS 3 TO 5 OF THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2017, AS UNDER 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ISSUE OF ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME HAS BEEN DISCUSSED. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS.1 LAC HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON 6.1.2006 AND THE DISALLOWANCE, IF ANY, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN MADE, WAS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. FURTHER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2000-01 AND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, NO S UCH PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN NO EXPENDITURE RELATING TO THE SAID PENALTY HAS BEE N CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, HAD RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 5. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS GROUND OF APPEA L IS ALLOWED AND THE ENHANCEMENT OF RS.1 LAC MADE BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE. 7. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDER DATED 21.12.2017 IN ITA NO.958/CHD/2017 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJEV GUPTA, LUDHIANA VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-V, LUDHIANA, THE ITA NO.1210/CHD/2017 A.Y.2000-01 4 IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.01.2019 SD/- SD/- !'# . . (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. SAINI $%& / JUDICIAL MEMBER / VICE PRESIDENT (%! /DATED: 24 TH JANUARY, 2019 * ) * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR