The ITO, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad V. AMG Business Solution Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2539/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89420 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL BHANDARI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 115JB; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2539/AHD/2011 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2006-07) I.T.O., WARD 1(1), AHMEDABAD V/S AMG BUSINESS SOLUTION PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, COMMERCE HOUSE-II, SATYA MARG, BODAKDEV, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAECA8365P APPELLANT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIPUL BHANDARI, A.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 30-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-05-2015 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-6, AHMEDABAD DATED 17.08.2011 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 30 TH APRIL, 2015 HAD SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT. WE FIND THAT IN THE LETTER, NO JUSTIFIED REASON FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT WAS STATED AND THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE FOR ADJOURNMENT AN D THEREFORE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION IS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL IS DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. ITA NO2539/A HD/2011 . A.Y. 2006- 07 2 3. ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF EXPORT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ENABLED SERVICES. . ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 06.12.2006 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,526/- AND BOOK PROFIT OF RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION OF RS. 48,63,601/- U/S. 10B OF THE ACT. THE CASE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.11.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER INCOME TAX A CT WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,526/- AND THE PROFIT CHARGEABLE TO TAX U/S. 1 15JB WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 35,76,116/-. WHILE FRAMING THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B WAS ALLOWED AT RS. 12,87,485/- AND THE EXCESS C LAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DENIED AND WAS TAXED U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. ON THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 10B, A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 10B WAS NOT CORRECTLY CLAIMED AND THEREFORE AS SESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT H AD THE CASE NOT BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THE AMOUNT WOULD HAVE ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE PENALTY WAS IMPOSABLE FOR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2009 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 4,51,400/- U/S. 271(1)(C). AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESA ID PENALTY ORDER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 17.08.2011 DELETED THE PENALTY. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RE VENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND;- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF RS. 4,51,400/-. 5. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ITA NO2539/A HD/2011 . A.Y. 2006- 07 3 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY HAS GIVEN A F INDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MORE SO, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS AN 100% EOU. WE FURTHER FIND THAT L D. CIT(A) GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT AN Y MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THI S GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 - 05 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AH MEDABAD