DCIT, Coimbatore V. Ultra Readymix Concrete P Ltd., Coimbatore

ITA 1637/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68735 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAJI P JACOB IRS
• Keywords: Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1637(MDS)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(3), COIMBATORE. VS M/S.ULTRA READYMIX CONCRETE PVT. LTD., 36-38, 11 TH STREET, TATABAD, COIMBATORE 641 012. PAN AAACU7836K. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, I RS, ADDL.CIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVAN T ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I AT COIMBATORE, DATED 7-5-2013. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE - - ITA 1637 OF 2013 2 PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF TEN DAYS IN FILING THIS APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE HAS FILED A PETIT ION TO CONDONE THE DELAY, SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT, WHEREIN THE C IRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DELAY HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. ON GOING THROUG H THE REASONS STATED BY THE REVENUE, WE FIND THAT THERE W AS NO LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE OFFICERS AND THE DELAY WAS CAUSE D DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THEIR CONTROL. ACCORDINGLY, THE DEL AY CAUSED IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEA L IS ADMITTED FOR HEARING ON THE ROLLS OF THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THERE WAS A DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), RESULTING IN ADDITION TO THE INC OME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THIS AD DITIONAL INCOME AS THE RESULT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME VIS- -VIS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND HE ACCORDI NGLY LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND NO ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL IN COME AND THE DISPUTE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY GENUINE AND LEGAL IN - - ITA 1637 OF 2013 3 CHARACTER AND, THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE DELETED THE PENALTY. 4. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED ON FOR HEARING, NOBO DY WAS PRESENT FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE INSPITE OF NOTICE. WE HEARD SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE. 6. WE AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) THAT ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WA S DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), THERE CANNOT BE AN ALTERNA TE CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE PARTICULARS ACCURATELY. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AGAINST INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA), WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED TH E SAID PROVISION. BUT FOR THAT DIFFERENCE IN OPINION, WHI CH IS BASICALLY LEGAL IN NATURE, THERE CANNOT BE A CASE OF CONCEALM ENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY. - - ITA 1637 OF 2013 4 7. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.