ACIT, CC-1(3), Kolkata V. M/s Rungta Mines Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2344/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3861 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 37; 143(3); 37(1); 201; 73

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () . . , .. !,' $) [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) &SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM] ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2016-17 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), KOLKATA. VS. M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD. (PAN: AABCR6463N) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING (VIRTUAL) 22.10.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.10.2020 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI DHRUBAJYOTI ROY, JCIT FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SUBASH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER A. T. VARKEY, JM: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-20, KOLKATA DATED 13-08-2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE REVEN UE IS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,45,03,635/- AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGES WHEN THE FACT WAS THAT IT WAS A PENALTY AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 73 OF INDIAN RAILWAY ACT, 1989. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE DREW O UR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE SAME ISSUE AROSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2013 -14 WHEREIN THE SAME ISSUE CROPPED UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS DEALT BY THE TRIBUNAL AS UNDER: 2. GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS FOL LOWS :- (1) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, L D.CIT(A) IS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES AS THE OVERLOADING CHARGES IS NOTHING BUT A PENALTY AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 73 OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY ACT, 1989 . 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY. IT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MINING. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT) THE AO NOTICED THAT UNDER THE HEAD FREIGHT AND TRANSPORTING EXPENSES THERE WERE CERTAIN EXPENSES INCURRED BY 2 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 THE ASSESEE. THE AFORESAID EXPENSES ALSO INCLUDED E XPENDITURE OF RS.5,77,69,535/- WHICH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGES. ACCORDING TO THE AO THESE CHARGES WERE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW AND THEREFORE OUGHT NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS A D EDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS PER THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION TO SEC TION 37(1) OF THE ACT. SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT ANY EXPENDITURE (NOT BEING EXPEND ITURE OF THE NATURE DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 30 TO 36 AND NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXP ENDITURE OR PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE), LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIV ELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION SHALL BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION IN COMPU TING INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. EXPL ANATION TO SEC.37(1) LAYS DOWN AS FOLLOWS: FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED T HAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENCE OR WHI CH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND NO DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 4. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THESE PAYMENT S WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LAW AND WERE PURELY IN THE NATURE O F COMPENSATORY CHARGES AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 3 7(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGES THAT THE CHA RGES THOUGH CALLED PUNITIVE CHARGES IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE RAILWAYS DID NOT ACTUALLY RELATE TO ANY OFFENCE OR INFRINGEMENT OF LAW. ON THE CONTRARY, IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL FR EIGHT ON OVERLOAD OF GOODS BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE LIMIT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE GOODS ARE LOADED FOR DESPATCH TO CUSTOMERS THROUGH RAILWAY WAGONS. WHEN THE ASSESSEE LOADS THE GOODS FOR DESPATCH THROUGH RAILWAY WAGONS ACTUAL MEASUREMENT OF WEIGHT CANNOT BE DONE DUE TO ABSENCE OF WEIGHING BRIDGE AT THE ORIGINATING STATION. THE LOADING NEVERTHELESS I S DONE ON SOME ESTIMATE BASIS WHICH OFTEN VARIES FROM THE RAILWAY MEASUREMENT WHEN IT ACTUALL Y GOES TO THE WEIGHING BRIDGE. IN CASE IT IS FOUND THAT THE GOODS WERE LOADED IN EXCESS THAN THE PERMISSIBLE LOAD, IT CANNOT BE UNLOADED. THE RAILWAYS HOWEVER RECOVER PUNITIVE CHARGES FOR S UCH OVERLOADING AS ADDITIONAL FREIGHT WHICH IS ONLY COMPENSATORY IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT OVERLOADING CHARGES WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATION OR IN FRACTION OF LAW BUT BY WAY OF COMPENSATION FOR PERMITTING TO OVERLOAD THE GOODS BEYOND THE PER MISSIBLE LIMIT; MOREOVER, THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR CRIMINAL ACTION OR PROSECUTION OR CON FISCATION OF GOODS FOR OVERLOADING. IT WAS ARGUED THAT IN FACT OVERLOADING WAS VERY COMMON WHI CH WAS PERMITTED BY THE RAILWAYS ON ADDITIONAL FREIGHT TERMED AS PUNITIVE CHARGES. 5. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OVERLOADING OF WAGONS WAS NOT A DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS BASICALLY DUE TO THE L ACK OF INFRASTRUCTURAL FACILITY AT THE LOADING STATION. IN CASE WEIGHING BRIDGE EXISTED AT THE LOA DING STATION, THEN OVERLOADING OF WAGONS COULD BE EASILY AVOIDED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED O N NOTIFICATION DATED THE 23RD DECEMBER 2005 (TO BE PUBLISHED IN GAZETTE OF INDIA, PARTII, SECTION 3(I) OF THE GAZETTE OF INDIA) ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS WHEREIN PUNITIVE CHARGE S FOR OVERLOADING HAS BEEN DEFINED IN PARA 3 AS : 'WHERE THE COMMODITIES ARE OVERLOADED IN A 8-WHEELE D WAGON, THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION SHALL RECOVER PUNITIVE CHARGES AS PR OVIDED IN PARTS I, II AND III OF THE SITUATION 'A' & 'B' OF THE SCHEDULE, FROM THE CONSI GNOR, THE CONSIGNEE OR THE ENDORSEE AS THE CASE MAY BE, FOR THE ENTIRE WEIGHT OF THE CO MMODITIES LOADED BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY FOR THE ENTIRE DISTAN CE TO BE TRAVELLED BY THE TRAIN HAULING THE WAGON FROM THE ORIGINATING STATION TO T HE DESTINATION POINT, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POINT OF DETECTION OF OVERLOADING : PROVIDED TH AT NO PUNITIVE CHARGES WILL BE LEVIED IF THE CUSTOMER CARRIES OUT LOAD ADJUSTMENT AT THE ORIGINATING STATION ITSELF IN CASE OF DETECTION OF OVERLOADING AT ORIGINATING POINT. 6. THE ASSESSEE THUS ARGUED THAT THE VERY HEADING O F PARA 3 OF THE SAID NOTIFICATION 'ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS NAMELY 'PUNITIVE CHARGES F OR OVERLOADING' MAKES IT AMPLY CLEAR THAT SUCH CHARGES WERE ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIO NAL FREIGHT FOR OVERLOADING BEYOND THE 3 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY AND WERE NOT IN THE N ATURE OF PENALTY FOR ANY OFFENCE OR INFRINGEMENT OF LAW. THE CHARGES WERE IN FACT COMPE NSATORY IN NATURE FOR TRANSPORTATION OF GOODS LOADED BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACI TY AND IT WAS ONLY IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE RAILWAYS THAT SUCH CHARGES ARE CALLED PUNITIVE CHARGES BUT IN COMMERCIAL PARLANCE IT IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF PENALTY FOR INFRACTION OF LAW. THEREFORE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY TO SUCH CHARGES. 7. THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (ACT). 8. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E FOLLOWING JUDGEMENTS WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGES WERE COMPENSATORY PAY MENTS AND CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. 1. M/S TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO VS ACIT, ITA NO. 847 & 1613/M/2010 2. WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD VS DCIT, ITA NOS. 289 & 2 90/NAG/2006 & 261/NAG/2008 3. AGARWAL ROADLINES (P) LTD VS DCIT, ITA NO. 668/ AHD/2009 4. DCIT VS BHARAT C GANDHI, ITA NO. 4270/MUM/2009 9. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HE H AD IN ONE OF ASSESSEES GROUP OF CASES FOR A.Y.2008-09 IN AN ORDER DATED 11.12.2014 TAKEN A VI EW THAT THE PUNITIVE CHARGES FOR OVERLOADING WERE ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF ADDITION AL FREIGHT FOR TRANSPORTING GOODS BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY WHICH CANNOT BE C ATEGORISED AS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFICE OR INFRINGEMENT OF L AW. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION THE CIT(A) TOOK THE VIEW THAT PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS C OMPENSATORY IN NATURE AND NOT PENAL AND THEREFORE THE PROVISION TO EXPLANATION TO SECTION 3 7(1) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE. IN THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY CIT(A) THERE IS ALSO A DISC USSION ABOUT THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY MINISTRY OF OVERLOADING CHARGES AND ALSO TH E DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH COTTON MILLS PVT. LTD. 201 I TR 684 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F HERO CYCLES LTD. 178 TAXMANN 484 (P&H). REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION OF I TAT NAGPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD (2009) 124 TTJ (NAG) 659. IN THE DEC ISION LAST CITED ON THE SAME NATURE OF EXPENSES NAMELY COMPENSATORY CHARGES TO THE RAILWAY S FOR OVER LOADING OF THE WAGON, IT WAS HELD TO BE NOT FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLANAT ION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE REVENUE HA S RAISED GROUND NO.1 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE IN OVERLOADING THE WAGON WAS AN ACT WHICH WAS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY FOR WHICH PUNITIVE CHARGES ARE LEVIED. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 73 OF THE RAILWAY ACT, 1989 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS :- 73. PUNITIVE CHARGE FOR OVERLOADING A WAGON.-WHER E A PERSON LOADS GOODS IN A WAGON BEYOND ITS PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY AS E XHIBITED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OR SUB SECTION (3), OR NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4), OF SECTION 72, A RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION MAY, IN ADDITION TO THE FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGES, RECOVER FROM THE CONSIGNOR, THE CONSIGNEE OR THE ENDORSEE, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CHARGES BY WAY OF PEN ALTY AT SUCH RATES, AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED, BEFORE THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS: PROVIDED THAT IT SHALL BE LAWFUL FOR THE RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION TO UNLOAD THE GOODS LOADED BEYOND TH E CAPACITY OF THE WAGON, IF DETECTED AT THE FORWARDING STATION OR AT ANY PLACE BEFORE THE D ESTINATION STATION AND TO RECOVER THE COST OF SUCH UNLOADING AND ANY CHARGE FOR THE DETENTION OF ANY WAGON ON THIS ACCOUNT. 12. HE LAID EMPHASIS ON THE FACT THAT THE STATUTORY PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PUNITIVE CHARGES ARE IN ADDITION TO FREIGHT AND OTHER CHARGE S. HE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THAT PUNITIVE CHARGES 4 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 ARE CLEARLY REFERRED TO AS PENALTY. IT WAS THEREFOR E SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. DR ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF TIME INCORPORATED VSLOKESH SRIVASTAVA (2006) 131 COMPANY CASE 198 (DELHI). HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THAT THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES ARE AWARDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING RELIEF TO THE OVERLOADED JUSTICE DELIVERY SYSTEM BY PROVIDING A CIVIL ALTERATIVE TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF MINOR CRIMES. HIS SUBMISSION WAS THA T THE PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE TO BE REGARDED AS PENALTY FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LAW FALLING WITHIN THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VSM AMTA ENTERPRISES 266 ITR 356 (KA. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, COMPOUNDING CHARGES PAID FOR UN AUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE COMPOUNDING FEE WAS PAID FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPOUNDING A CRIMINAL OFFENCE AND WAS THEREFORE HIT BY THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION T O SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT. REFERENCE WAS ALSO MADE TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF HAJI AZIZ & ABDUL BROTHERS VS CIT 41 ITR 350 (SC) . IN THE AFORESAID CASE FINE PAID TO CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES FOR RELEASE OF CONFISCATED GOODS IMPORTED CONTRARY TO L AW WAS HELD TO BE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS M/S. FEEGRADE& COMPANY PVT. LTD. IN IT(SS) A. NOS. 36 TO 38/KOL/2015 DATED 05.04.2017 WHEREIN THIS TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGES WERE NOT HIT BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1 ) OF THE ACT. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FEEGRADE& COMPANY PVT. LTD ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS TAKEN TH E FOLLOWING VIEW :- 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL IT WAS FA IRLY ACCEPTED BY THE PARTIES THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUAR ELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO.(P)LTD (SUPRA). IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THE HONBLE ITAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH CO TTON MILLS P.LTD. 201 ITR 684 (SC) AND ALSO THE NATURE OF RAILWAY PUNITIVE CHARGE S HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE RAILWAYS FOR OVERLOADING OF THE WAGONS IS COMPE NSATORY IN NATURE AND CANNOT BE DISALLOWED UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) OF TH E ACT. THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSES SEE AND WHERE THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF OVERLOADING CHARGES PAID TO RAILWAYS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE CASE OF M/S TAURIAN IRON & STEEL CO (SUP RA) ITAT MUMBAI BENCH DEALT WITH AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND CAME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIO N :- THE OVERLOADING CHARGES PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO THE RAILWAYS ARE PAID IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE N OTIFICATION ISSUED BY MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS DOTED 23.12.2005. THE NOTIFICATION OF MINI STRY OF RAILWAYS DATED 23.12.2005 PROVIDES A SCHEDULE IN WHICH 'SITUATION A' AND SITU ATION B PROVIDES 7 ITA NO.1653/KOL/2016 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PRIVATE LTD. A.Y .2013-14 THAT F THE AGGREGATED PAYLOAD IN A RAKE EXCEED THE COMBINED PERMISSIBLE C ARRYING CAPACITY OF THE RAKE, THE PUNITIVE CHARGES SHOULD BE LEVIED AS PER 'PART - I, 'PART-II, PART-ILL OF SITUATIONS A & B' IT PROVIDES THAT IN CASE OF OVERLOADING UPTO1/2 TONNES, 'PUNITIVE CHARGES ELIGIBLE ON THE ENTIRE WEIGHT OF LOADING BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY SHALL BE NIL (AS PER DIFFERENT TABLES OF SITUATION A' AND SITUATION B' AND IN CASE THE WEIGHT OF COMMODITY EXCEEDS THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY . OF THE WAGON BY MORE THAN 1/2 TONNES, THE PUNITIVE CHARGES ELIGIBLE ON THE ENTIRE WEIGHT LOADING BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY WOULD BE '2 TIMES THE FREIGHT RATES APPLICABLE TO THAT COMMODITY IN CASE OF SITUATION A' AND 3 TIMES THE F REIGHT RATES APPLICABLE TO THE HIGHEST CLASS IN CASE OF SITUATION B'. 5 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 THUS, IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE NOTIFICATION OF MINIST RY OF RAILWAYS DATED 23.12.2005 THAT THE RAILWAY AUTHORITIES DO ALLOW OVERLOADING OF ITS RAKE AND IT CHARGES 2 OR 3 TIMES THE FREIGHT RATE APPLICABLE TO THAT COMMODITY AS PUNITI VE CHARGES'. THOUGH THE WORDS USED IN THE NOTIFICATION ARE 'PUNITIVE CHARGES', THE CHA RGES LEVIED BY THE INDIAN RAILWAYS FOR CARRYING THE GOODS IN ITS RAKE .ARE PERMITTED BY RA ILWAY AUTHORITIES ITSELF AND THE PUNITIVE CHARGES ARE COMPUTED AS 2 TIMES OR 3 TIMES OF THE FREIGHT RATES. THE PUNITIVE CHARGES LEVIED BY RAILWAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NOTIFICATION OF MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS DATED 23.12.2005, FOR CARRYING GOODS IN IT S RAKES ARE NOT 'FOR ANY PURPOSE WHICH IS AN OFFENSE OR WHICH IS PROHIBITED BY LAW'. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE INDIAN RAILWAYS ITSELF PERMITS CARRYING WEIGHT LOAD BEYOND THE PERMISSIBLE CARRYING CAPACITY SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF HIGHER RATE OF FREIGHT BY 2 T IMES OR 3 TIMES. THOUGH THE WORDS ARE 'PUNITIVE CHARGES', THEY ARE PAYMENT WHICH ARE NEITHER AN OFFENSE NOR IS PROHIBITED BY THE LAW RATHER THE PAYMENT IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS PROVIDED IN THE NOTIFICATION OF MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS DATED 23.12.20 05. IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37 IS NOT APPLICABLE AND THE PAYMENT OF RS.1,01,85, 788/- IS ALLOWABLE. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND GROUN D NO. 4 IS ALLOWED. 16. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF TIME INCORPORATED (SUPRA) CITED BY THE LD. DR BEFORE US IS CONCERNED THAT WAS THE CASE OF A SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND DAMAGES, FILED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT FOR A PASSING OFF ACTION AND IN THE COURSE OF ITSJUDGEMENT THE HONBLE COURT MADE A REFERENCE REGARDING PURPOSE OF AWARDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES. THE SAID DECISION IS NOT OF ANY APPLICATIO N WHATSOEVER BE THE PRESENT CASE. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAMTAENTERPRISES(SUPRA) IS AGAIN A CASE WHERE THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE WAS COMPOUN DED AND THE COMPOUNDING FEES WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO OFFENCE WHATSOEVER AND THERE IS NO COMPOUNDING FEE PAID AND CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. AS F AR AS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HAJI AZIZ AND ABDUL BR OTHERS (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED IT WAS AGAIN THE CASE OF BREACH OF PENAL PROVISIONS OF CUSTOMS A CT FOR WHICH FINE WAS PAID. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPENSES WERE NOT ALLOWED AS DED UCTION. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY CIT(A). WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 4. WE NOTE THAT THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY T HE REVENUE IN AY 2013-14 AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF REVENUE BY PASSING THE AFORESAID SPEAKING ORDER AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HIS OWN ORDER FOR THE EARLIER AY 2015- 16. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY CHANGE IN FACTS OR LAW WHICH WOULD HAVE ALL OWED US SCOPE TO INTERFERE. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- P. M. JAGTAP) (ABY. T. VARKEY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :28 TH OCTOBER, 2020 JD.(SR.P.S.) 6 ITA NO.2344/KOL/2019 M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., AY- 2016-17 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT ACIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA. 2 RESPONDENT M/S. RUNGTA MINES PVT. LTD., 8A, EXPR ESS TOWER, 42A, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA-700 017. 3. 4. 5. CIT(A)-20, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) CIT- , KOLKATA DR, ITAT, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH E-MAIL) / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA.