Gandevikar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 1665/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8497 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R P MAURYA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NO. 1665/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) GANDEVIKAR JEWELLERS PVT. LTD., 10, SUDHA CO-OP. SOCIETY, JETALPUR ROAD, BARODA 390007 A PPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), VADODARA RESPONDENT PAN: AAACG8448D /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI R. P. MAURYA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-I, BARODAS ORDER DATED 22.04.2014, IN CASE NO. CAB-I/026/2013-14, CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION IMPOSING PENA LTY OF RS.12,94,000/-, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD BOTH SIDES. CASE FILE PERUSED. 2. WE ADVERT TO THE RELEVANT FACTS NOW. THIS ASSES SEE IS A COMPANY MANUFACTURING AND TRADING IN GOLD, SILVER AND DIAMO ND ORNAMENTS/ARTICLES. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.08.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,63,83,980/-. THE ITA NO. 1665/AHD/14 (GANDEVIKAR JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER TOOK UP SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT ON 08.06.2012 ASSESSING ASSESSEES INCOME AS RS.2,73,23,060/- INCLUDING DEP RECIATION DISALLOWANCE OF RS.38,87,603/- REGARDING VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK PERTAINING THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 TO BE TAKEN AS OPENING STOC K OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR COMPUTING CONSEQUENTIAL PROFITS. HE FURTH ER INITIATED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME. QUANTUM PRO CEEDINGS ATTAINED FINALITY ACCORDINGLY. 3. WE NOW COME TO THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR THE INSTANT TAX PAYERS RESPONSE REGARDI NG THE ABOVE QUANTUM ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS REPLY ON 26.06.2012 INTER AL IA SUBMITTING THEREIN THAT IT HAD MISTAKENLY INTERCHANGED WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF VARIO US BLOCKS OF ASSETS RESULTING IN THE ABOVESTATED QUANTUM DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATIO N AMOUNTING TO RS. 38,87,603/-. IT THEREFORE CLARIFIED THAT THE SAME WAS NOT EITHER AN ACT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS TH EREOF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE. HE OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALTHOUGH FILED THE REQUISITE PARTICULAR PERTAINING TO WRITTE N DOWN VALUE OF ASSETS IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY BUT SAME WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHAR GE IT FROM CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTY AS THERE WAS NO REVISED RETURN FILED U/S.139(5) OF THE ACT. HE WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ABOVE ALLEGED CONDUCT IN S UBMITTING WRONG PARTICULARS OF BLOCK OF ASSETS/WDV AMOUNTED TO BOTH CONCEALMENT AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OF FICER THEREFORE IMPOSED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.12,94,000/- IN HIS ORDER DAT ED 28.03.2013. 4. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTI ON. THIS LEAVES THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. CASE FILE PERUSED. THERE CAN HARDLY BE ANY DISPUTE ABOUT THE CERTAIN LEGAL PROPOSITION IN VIEW OF HONBLE APEX COURTS LANDMARK DECISION CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS ITA NO. 1665/AHD/14 (GANDEVIKAR JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - 322 ITR 158 (SC) THAT QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS ARE PARALLEL WHEREIN EACH AND EVERY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION MADE IN THE COURSE OF FORMER DOES NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT LATTER PENALTY PROVISION. WE KEEP IN MIND THE SAID FINE DISTINCTION TO DEAL WITH THE RELEVANT FACTS IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE A SSESSEES CASE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN THAT IT HAD INADVERTENTLY INTERCHANGED RELEVANT WRI TTEN DOWN VALUE OF THE CORRESPONDING BLOCK OF ASSETS. WE SOUGHT FURTHER C LARIFICATION IN THIS REGARD FROM THE CASE FILE. LEARNED COUNSEL TOOK US TO PAGE 13 OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAD PLEADED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE OPENING WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF FURNITURE @ 10% AS PRESCRIBED WAS MISTAKENLY TAKEN AS CORRESPONDING RATE @ 60% IN CASE OF COMPUTERS BLOCK. HIS CASE THEREFORE IS THAT ALL T HIS RESULTED IN EXCESS DEPRECIATION CLAIM BEING RAISED FOR DEPRECIATION PURPOSE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED ITS ARITHMETIC MISTAKES DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ITSELF. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO REBUT THIS CRU CIAL FACT. HIS ONLY PLEA IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ITS REVISED RETURN OF INCOME . WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE INSTANT PLEA AS THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT WAS PURELY A CASE OF COMPUTATION ERROR WHICH STOOD CORRECTED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST ITSELF. WE THEREFOR E ACCEPT ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS ASSAILING CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AMOUN TING TO RS.12.94LACS. THE SAME STANDS DELETED. 6. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 26/09/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT ITA NO. 1665/AHD/14 (GANDEVIKAR JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0