Sadafuli Finvest Pvt.Ltd., Vapi V. The ACIT.,Vapi Circle, Vapi

ITA 1468/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62970 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

, , , , A, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + )* + )* + )* + ) ' ) ' ) ' ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.1468/AHD/2012 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-2007] SADAFULI FINVEST P. LTD. SHED NO.A/21, GIDC ESTATE VAPI 396 196. PAN : AAHCS 2367 L /VS. ACIT, VAPI CIRCLE VAPI. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 )/ ASSESSEE BY : MS. URVASHI SHODHAN + 2 3 )/ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA 5 2 &(*/ DATE OF HEARING : 3 RD SEPTEMBER, 2012 678 2 &(*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-10-2012 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 14.03.2012. ITA NO.1468/AHD/2012 -2- 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.4,73, 181/- IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4 3,53,253/-. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIA TION CLAIM ON TEMPORARY SHED WRITTEN OFF OF INTEREST PAID TO BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO. SHE S UBMITTED THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT. ALL MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ASS ESSMENT WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF MERE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT REG ARDING ALLOWABILITY OF CERTAIN EXPENSES/DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SHE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD., 322 ITR 158 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN SAMBHAV MEDIA LTD. VS. ACIT, IN ITA NO.843/AHD/2006 DATED 2-3-2012 IN SUPP ORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO MAKING THE DISAL LOWANCES, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS R ETURN OF INCOME TRULY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT ITSELF. THE DE PRECIATION AND THE ITA NO.1468/AHD/2012 -3- INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD. WAS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY BECAUSE THE SAME WERE NOT ALLOW ED AS DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA FIDE AND IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ALLOWABILITY OF DE DUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD. (SUPRA) S UPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECO RD ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT BONA FIDE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE MATER IAL FACTS RELATING TO ITS ASSESSMENT, WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORD INGLY CANCELLED AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&' %&' %&' %&'( (( ( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER