The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Raj kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 1859/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0731 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 80IA; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Ms. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs M/s Raj Kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 54, park Hill, Nr. Heaven Park Ramdevnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 PAN: AABCR0326A (Respondent) Appellant by : Smt. Leena Lal, Sr.D.R. Respondent by : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Date of hearing : 31-05-2022 Date of pronouncement : 31-05-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Ahmedabad, (in short referred to as CIT(A)), dated 07-10-2019, u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14,deleting the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 1859/Ahd/2019 Assessment Year 2013-14 I.T.A No. 1859/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No DCIT vs. M/s. Raj Kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. At the outset itself, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the additions/disallowances on account of which penalty had been levied by the A.O. u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, stood deleted in quantum proceedings by the ITAT in its order passed for the impugned year in ITA No. 2916/Ahd/2016 dated 13.05.2022. Copy of the order was placed before us. 3. Thereafter taking us to the orders of the authorities below, it was pointed out therefrom that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) had been levied on account of the following additions/disallowances made in the assessment framed for the impugned year u/s. 143(3) of the Act. (i) disallowance of claim of deduction/s. 80IA amounting to Rs. 6,94,23,411/- (ii) disallowance of interest expense u/s. 36(1)(iii) amounting to Rs. 8,52,822/-. (iii) Set off losses while claiming deduction u/s. 80IA amounting to Rs. 1,73,32,746/-. 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that on account of the above disallowances, a penalty of Rs. 2,97,78,292/- had been levied on the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income/concealing particulars of income as per the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. He thereafter pointed out from the order of the ld. CIT(A) that the penalty was deleted on account of the disallowance of deduction u/s.80IA of the Act and set off losses while computing deduction u/s. 80IA of the I.T.A No. 1859/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No DCIT vs. M/s. Raj Kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 3 Act, following the order of the ld. CIT(A) deleting the levy of penalty in relation to identical disallowances in the preceding assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13, while the penalty levied on account of disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted finding it to be a notional disallowance and following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sarabhai Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2002] 257 ITR 355. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee thereafter took us through the order passed by the ITAT in quantum proceedings for the impugned year and drawing out attention to para 43 of the order pointed out that the ITAT had upheld the claim of the assessee to deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. Our attention was thereafter drawn to para 55 of the order holding that no losses were to be set off against the profit making unit while computing the profits eligible for deduction u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. Further our attention was drawn to para 62 of the order wherein the disallowance of interest expenses u/s. 36(1)(iii) of the Act was deleted. 7. Ld. D.R. fairly conceded that the disallowances in relation to which penalty had been levied stood deleted by the ITAT in its order passed for the impugned year. 8. In view of the above since the disallowances pertaining to which penalty has been levied no longer survive there is no case at all for levy of penalty. The appeal of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. I.T.A No. 1859/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No DCIT vs. M/s. Raj Kamal Builders Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4 9. In effect, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 31-05-2022 Sd/- Sd/- (TR SENTHIL KUMAR) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 31/05/2022 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद