RADIANT SATELLITE (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD., KOTA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, KOTA

ITA 1426/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5936 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANMOHAN KANDPAL ACIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: HEMANG GARGIEYA
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 1426/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 RADIANT SATTELITE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., G-247, ROAD NO. 5, IPIA, KOTA (RAJ). CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADCR 3673 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HEMANG GARGIEYA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI MANMOHAN KANDPAL (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/11/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 12/09/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT). 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING CABLE OPERATOR SERVICES. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. MADE ITA 1426/JP/2018 M/S RADIANT SETTLLITE (P) P LTD. VS ITO 2 VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES OUT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENSES MADE UNDER THE HEAD FESTIVAL EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, PRINTING AND STATIONARY EXPENSES AND TELECASTING EXPENSES ETC. THEREAFTER THE A.O. ALSO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE SO MADE BY HIM. THE A.O. ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WHICH WAS NOT PAID WITHIN THE DUE TIME STIPULATED UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND SCHEME, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS ALSO DISALLOWED U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY SO LEVIED WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT DEFECT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S. 274 OF THE ACT FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE NOTICE AS TO FOR WHICH DEFAULT, THIS NOTICE WAS ISSUED. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. WITH REGARD TO MERIT OF THE ADDITION, THE LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS PART DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ITA 1426/JP/2018 M/S RADIANT SETTLLITE (P) P LTD. VS ITO 3 RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE A.O. MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES SO MADE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF EXPENDITURE WILL NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO VISIT THE ASSESSEE FROM PENAL PROVISIONS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. APPLYING THE PROPOSITION OF LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, I OBSERVE THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED MERELY FOR AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF ITA 1426/JP/2018 M/S RADIANT SETTLLITE (P) P LTD. VS ITO 4 EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL; @ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- RADIANT SATTELITE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1426/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR