Asian Petroproducts & Exports Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT., Circle-1(1), Baroda

ITA 2340/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5905 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH HEARING CONCLUDED O
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2340/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.2340/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASIAN PETROPRODUCTS & EXPORTS LTD., ..................APPELLANT 204/205, STERLING CENTRE, RC DUTT ROAD, ALKAPURI, BARODA. [PAN : AACCA 8443 J] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), BARODA . ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY M.K. PATEL FOR THE APPELLANT V.K. SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 20.12.2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.03.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 5 TH JUNE 2014 UPHOLDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS :- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING A PENALTY OF RS.1,54,500/- U NDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ALLEGED CONCEALMENT AND/OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF T HE ESTIMATION OF INCOME. 3. THE SHORT REASON FOR WHICH RELATED QUANTUM ADDIT ION WAS MADE WAS BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS, AND, AS SUCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO PROCEED TO FAME ASSESSMENT ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS @ 8% EVEN THOUGH, STRICTLY SPEAKING, SUCH PRESUMPTIVE BA SIS HAD NO STATUTORY APPLICATION ITA NO.2340/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 HERE. THE MATTER DID NOT REST AT THAT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY THE L EARNED CIT(A) AS WELL. AGGRIEVED OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) SO CONFIRMING THE PENALTY, THE A SSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF APPLIC ABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. SO FAR AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CLAIM AND JUST BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AT A HIGHER INCOME, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CANNOT BE INFERRED. THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN CONSONANCE OF THE PAST RECORD AND THE PENALTY IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ADOPTION OF INCOME AT A PARTICULAR RAT E. WHATEVER BE THE MERITS OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONS IDERED VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS NOT JUSTIFIED - PARTICULARLY LOOKING TO THE SMALLNESS OF AMOUNT. THE BONAFIDES OF THE ASSESSEES CONDUCT HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN QUESTIONED, AND THE MERE FACT EMPHASISED BEFORE US IS ASSESSMEN T AT HIGHER INCOME AND ASSESSEES INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W HICH WERE ADMITTEDLY DULY AUDITED. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND BEARING IN MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) DATED: 19 TH MARCH, 2018 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD