The Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1, Surat

ITA 1273/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9356 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS USHA SHROTE
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: S H RI N.K. BILLAIYA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER ALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERING PVT. LTD, PLOT NO. B - 168, ROAD NO. 6 - G, UDHYOGNAGAR, UDHNA, SURAT - 394210 PAN: AAACD8469M (APPELLANT) VS DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MRS. USHA SHROT E , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING : 17 - 0 2 - 2 016 DATE OF PRO NOUNCEMENT : 23 - 02 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005 - 06 , AR I SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, SURAT DA TED 26 - 04 - 2012 IN APPEAL NO. C AS - 1 /277 /2011 - 12 , IN PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 1273 / A HD/20 12 A S SESSMENT YEAR 200 5 - 06 I .T.A NO. 1273 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO M/S. ALIDHARA TEXT OO L ENGINEERING PVT. LTD VS. DCIT 2 2. THE ASSESSEE'S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE CHALLENGES THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER DISMISSING ITS APPEAL AS TIME BARRED AG AINST ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IN IMPOSING SECTION 271 (1)(C) PENALTY OF RS. 30,41,334 / - IN ORDER DATED 24 - 03 - 2010. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IN A NARROW COMPASS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEE'S CASE ON 31 - 03 - 2008 INTER ALIA DI SALLOWING/ADDING GROSS PROFITS OF RS. 74,49,336/ - , SECTION 80IB DEDUCTION OF RS. 5,79,717 / - AND UNDER THE HE AD DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,82,277 / - . HE INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALLEGING CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THE CIT(A) UPHELD ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITA 3497/AHD/2008 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 12 - 08 - 2011 DELETED ABOVE STATED GP ADDITION AND PARTLY MODIFIED THE OTHER TWO ADDITIONS PERTAINING TO SECTI ON 80IB DEDUCTION AND DEPRECIATION DISALLOWANCE (SUPRA). QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS SEEM TO HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY AT THIS STAGE. 3. WE COME TO IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER DATED 24 - 03 - 2010 QUOTED CHRONOLOGY OF ASSESSMENT EVENTS AND HELD THAT THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCES AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY CONCEALING THE SAME FROM BEING ASSESSED. HE ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED THE IMPUGNED PENAL TY OF RS. 30,41,334 / - . 4. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE FILED ITS APPEAL ON 21 - 03 - 2012 AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 24 - 03 - 2010 I.E. AFTER A DELAY OF I .T.A NO. 1273 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO M/S. ALIDHARA TEXT OO L ENGINEERING PVT. LTD VS. DCIT 3 ALMOST TWO YEARS. IT FILED A CONDONATION PETITION PLEADING THAT ITS ACCOUNTANT SUFFERED FROM ILLNESS. THE CIT(A) DOES NOT TREAT THIS REASON AS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. HE HOWEVER DIRECTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GRANT BENEFIT OF SECTION 275(1 A) OF THE ACT. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 5. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEE'S BEHEST. IT HAS ADDRESSED A LETTER DATED 11 - 08 - 2015 REQUESTING FOR DECISION OF THE APPEAL IN VIEW OF ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE REVENUE STRONGLY REITERATE THE CIT(A)'S ORDER. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE FACTUAL POSITION NARRATED IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. THE ASSESSEE MAKES TWO FOLD PLEADINGS. THE FIRST ONE IS THAT THE CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO ADMIT HIS APPEAL BY CONDONING DELAY. ITS ALTERNATIVE GROUND IS THAT NECESSARY DIRECTION BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PASSING A FRESH PENALTY ORDER AS PER TRIBUNAL 'S FINDINGS IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS (SUPRA). WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALTHOUGH QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS STAND ON DIFFERENT FOOTINGS, HOWEVER THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISPUTE THAT OUTCOME OF THE FORMER HAS A DEFINITE BEARING ON THE LATTER BEING CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ISSUED NECESSARY DIRECTION IN PARA 7.3 OF THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER. WE STILL FEEL MORE APPROPRIATE IN EXERCISING OUR JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER THE ACT THAT THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE COMPUTE THE PENALTY AMOUNT IN TUNE WITH THE TRIBUNAL'S QUANTUM FINDINGS (SUPRA) AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. I .T.A NO. 1273 /AHD/20 12 A.Y. 2005 - 06 PAGE NO M/S. ALIDHARA TEXT OO L ENGINEERING PVT. LTD VS. DCIT 4 6. THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 23 - 02 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 23 /02 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,