M/S NEXUS TRANSCORE INDUSTRIES, PUDUCHERRY V. DCIT PUDUCHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 1443/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9248 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(1); 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1443/CHNY/2018 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S NEXUS TRANSCORE INDUSTRIES, NO.58, PIPCDIC INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, METTUPALAYAM, PUDUCHERRY-605 009. PAN : AADFN 3406 A V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY CIRCLE, PUDUCHERRY. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT / - 0# / DATE OF HEARING : 18.03.2019 12' - 0# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.04.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHERRY, D ATED 26.02.2018, CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. SH. B. RAMAKRISHNAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INC OME DISCLOSING NIL 2 I.T.A. NO.1443/CHNY/18 TAXABLE INCOME AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF 1,12,052/- UNDER SECTION 80- IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE , THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER , SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80- IA OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT 1,12,052/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING. ACC ORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALED ANY PART OF INCOME. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATI VE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF INCOME AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, IS WHEN THE AS SESSEE MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT, WHETHE R THIS WOULD AMOUNT TO CONCEALING ANY PART OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME? PLACING RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX C OURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS AS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT THAT W OULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONC EALING ANY PART OF 3 I.T.A. NO.1443/CHNY/18 INCOME. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE IN CORRECT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF THE ACT. THEREFOR E, THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED TH E PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ENTIRE DETAILS OF INCOME . ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-IA OF T HE ACT. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND THE CLAIM WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHETHER THAT W OULD AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONC EALING ANY PART OF INCOME? THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE APEX COUR T IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA). THE APEX COURT FOU ND THAT WHEN A CLAIM WAS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER FURNISH ING ENTIRE DETAILS OF INCOME, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBST ANTIATE THE CLAIM, THAT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR 4 I.T.A. NO.1443/CHNY/18 CONCEALING ANY PART OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE JUD GMENT OF APEX COURT IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH IS B INDING ON ALL THE AUTHORITIES, LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST APRIL, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 1 ST APRIL, 2019. KRI. - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )*/ APPELLANT 2. +,)*/ RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A), PUDUCHERRY 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, PUDUCHERRY 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.