DCIT, Hisar V. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar

ITA 2034/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2008 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: YAGYASAINI KAKKAR
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 271(1)(c); 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 43B; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2034/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar. Vs. M/s Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Nagar, Delhi Road, Hisar. PAN-AABCD 0033C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. and Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Yagyasaini Kakkar, CIT- DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hisar [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 19.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2011-12. Grounds of appeal taken in this appeal of Assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Municipal Taxes does not fall under the purview of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2 ITA No.2034 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the version that expenses are not debited in profit and loss account as such not disallowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act and accordingly not covered within ambit of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas in quantum appeal of the assessee, on the issue of Municipal Tax the additions made by the AO has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No 194/HSR/14-15 dated 31.03.2016. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, or amend the grounds before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” (B) During the appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT”, for short) a consolidated paper book has been filed from the assessee’s side, containing the following particulars in respect of this appeal: S. No. Particulars 1. Copy of ITAT Quantum Order dated 19.02.2020 for AY 2008-09 & 2011-12 in ITA Nos.3412 & 3413/Del/16 2. Copy of ITAT Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) order dated 10.08.2017 for AY 2005-06 3. Copy of ITAT Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) order dated 28.02.2022 for AYs 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2006-07 3 ITA No.2034 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (B.1) On perusal of records, we find from the records, that Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.6,86,88,573/-, in respect of additions totaling Rs.20,67,84,296/-. These additions totaling aforesaid amount of Rs.20,67,84,296/- already stand deleted by ITAT vide aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020 of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in ITA Nos.3412 & 3413/Del/2016. (B.1.1) Vide aforesaid impugned order dated 19.12.2018; the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.6,86,88,573/- for Assessment Year 2011-12. The present appeal before us has been filed by Revenue against the impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) whereby he deleted the penalty. (B.1.2) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer has no legs to stand, because the corresponding quantum additions amounting to Rs.20,67,84,296/- for Assessment Year 2011-12 4 ITA No.2034 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. stand already deleted by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi vide aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020. Therefore, he submitted, the present appeal filed by the Department against impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be dismissed. (B.2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Departmental Representative) for Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. However, she did not dispute the fact that quantum additions in respect of which penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2011- 12; stand already deleted by order of Co-ordinate Bench, Delhi vide aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020. (B.2.1) As the quantum additions in respect of which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act has been levied by the Assessing Officer, stand already deleted by order of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi; we are in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for assessee, that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act have no legs to stand; and that the Departmental appeal against the impugned appellate order 5 ITA No.2034 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. of the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be dismissed. We take support from the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC). In view of the foregoing, the present appeal by Revenue is hereby dismissed. (F) In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed. This order was already pronounced orally on 3 rd March, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 03.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03.03.2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI