ACIT, Cir.7, Pune, Pune V. Yutaka Autoparts Pune Ltd., Pune

ITA 1276/PUN/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 127624514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVGUNDE
• Assessee Lawyers: R D ONKAR
• Keywords: Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1276/PN/10 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2003-04) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, .. APPELLANT CIR.7, PUNE VS. YUTAKA AUTOPARTS PUNE LTD., RESPONDENT GAT NO 316, VLLAGE KASAEABOLI, OFF URAWADE ROAD, TAL. MULSHI, PUNE - PAN AABCT3928L APPELLANT BY: SHRI SHIVGUNDE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI R D ONKAR ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, AM THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, PUNE DATED 5.8.2009 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM A PENALTY ORDER DATED 13.3.2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT), PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVE NUE RELATES TO THE CANCELLATION OF THE PENALTY OF RS 8,05,000/- BY THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINING TOTAL LOSS A T RS 2 2,58,80,517/- AS AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS 2,86,17,400 /-. THE ADDITION THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) WAS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FEES OF RS 21,19,000/- PAID TO YUTKA GIKEN CO. LTD. CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE, BUT HELD BY THE REVENUE TO BE CAPI TAL EXPENDITURE. 4. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, INA SMUCH AS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FEES AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS FALSE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED A PEN ALTY OF RS 8,05,002/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) BY PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V HARSHWARDHAN CHEMICALS & MINERALS LTD. 259 ITR 12 (RAJ.) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYI NG THE IMPUGNED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY , AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. W E HAVE GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF HARSHWARDHAN CHEMICALS & MINERALS LTD. (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT WHERE AN ARGUABLE, CONTROVERSIAL AND DEBATABLE DEDUCTIO N IS CLAIMED, THE CLAIM COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE FALSE, OTHE RWISE IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ASSESSEE TO RAISE ANY CLAIMS OR DEDUCTI ONS WHICH MIGHT BE DEBATABLE AND IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO MAKE PUNISHABLE SUCH CLAIMS, IF THEY WERE NOT ACCEPTED . FURTHER WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIAN CE PETROPRODUCTS 3 (P) LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITI ON THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENDITUR E WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) IS NOT ATTRACTED; MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPR ODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), WE AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL FAILS. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30TH DA Y OF JUNE, 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2011 COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT (A)-III PUNE 4) CIT-IV PUNE 5) DR, B BENCH, ITAT, PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T., PUNE B