Shri Kaushik B. Patel, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Baroda

ITA 1634/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1157 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: UKTI PARIKH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. NO.1634/AHD/13 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) SHRI KAUSHIK B. PATEL SHAH MEHTA & BAKSHI, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (C/O : SHRI KAUSHIK B PATEL), 2 ND FLOOR, PRASANNA HOUSE, ASSOCIATED SOCIETY, NEAR AKOTA STADIUM, VADODARA 390020 APPELLA NT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1), BARODA RESPONDENT PAN: ADAPP9713E / BY ASSESSEE : MS. UKTI PARIKH, A.R. / BY REVENUE : SHRI KEYUR PATEL, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.07.2016 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, BARODA, DATED 19.03.2013 PASSED IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HEREINAF TER THE ACT. ITA NO.1634/AHD/2013 (SHRI KAUSHIK B. PATEL VS. ITO ) A.Y. 2008-09 - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGE S THE LOWER APPELLATE ORDER UPHOLDING SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IMPOSED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS.34,300/- ARISING FROM DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED AMOUNTING TO RS.1,43,327/-. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IN A NARROW COMPASS. THIS ASSESSEE TRADES IN DRY ICE AND COLD STORAGE. HE FI LED RETURN ON 29.07.2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1,51,710/-. THE ASSESSING O FFICER TOOK UP SCRUTINY. HE NOTICED ASSESSEES BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.3,83,342/-. HE ACCORDINGLY ASKED FOR RECONCILIATION OF THIS CLA IM FROM A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2008-09. IT REVEALED FROM ASSESSEES DETAILS THAT IT HAD INCLUDED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,95,015/- AND RS.1,43,3 27/- FOR A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY AND ALSO THAT THE LATER SUM HA D ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED IN A.Y. 2007-08. HE ACCORDINGLY SHOW CAUSED THE ASSES SEE WHO STATED TO HAVE FILED A LETTER DATED 26.11.2010 REVISING COMPUTATIO N THEREBY AGREEING FOR THE QUANTUM DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,43,327/-. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FRAMED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ON 30.11.2010 MAKING THE SAID AD DITION TO ASSESSEES INCOME. HE ALSO INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS ALLEGING CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ATTAINED FINALITY AT THIS STAGE. 3. WE COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. TH E ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT HE COMMITTED A MISTAKE DUE TO SOFTWARES MALFU NCTIONING WHICH STOOD ADMITTED BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN PENALTY ORDER DATED 24.05.2011 REJECTED THE SAME. HE REFERRED TO QUANTUM EVENTS TO TREAT ASSESSEES DEPRECIATION CLAIM AS AN ATTEMPT OF FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO CONCEAL THE SAME FROM BEIN G ASSESSED. ALL THIS RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.34,300/-. T HE CIT(A) CONFIRMS ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION. ITA NO.1634/AHD/2013 (SHRI KAUSHIK B. PATEL VS. ITO ) A.Y. 2008-09 - 3 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES REITERATING THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS AGAINST IN SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER. THERE IS NOT DISPUTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BROUGHT FORWARD DEPR ECIATION/LOSS OF RS.1,43,327/- IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH TURNED OUT TO HAVE BEEN ALREADY CLAIMED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ANALYZE HIM BY TREATING THE SAME AS NOT A BONAFIDE CLAIM. WE TEND TO DEFER FROM THIS COURSE OF ACTION. OUR OPIN ION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE IMPUGNED CLAIM. HE HAD PLACED ON RECORD ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE BROUGHT FORW ARD DEPRECIATION CLAIM IN QUESTION WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN AVAILED IN A.Y. 2006 -07. WE OBSERVE IN THESE PECULIAR FATS, THAT THE ASSESSEE PLACED ON RE CORD THE RELEVANT DETAILS BUT COMMITTED A BONAFIDE MISTAKE IN SEEKING BROUGHT FOR WARD DEPRECIATION RELIEF ONCE AGAIN. HE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ERROR IN QUE STION AND REVISED HIS RETURN. WE CONCLUDE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKGROUND THA T ASSESSEES ACTION IN QUESTION IS NEITHER A CASE OF CONCEALMENT NOR OF FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. WE ACCORDINGLY DELETE THE IM PUGNED PENALTY OF RS.34,300/- AS IMPOSED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 5. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (MANISH BORAD) (S . S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 11/07/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT ITA NO.1634/AHD/2013 (SHRI KAUSHIK B. PATEL VS. ITO ) A.Y. 2008-09 - 4 - 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )* + ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 + 23 4 5 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // , . /0