M/s.Kohinoor Dyeing & Printing Mills P.Ltd., Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Surat

ITA 2598/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7237 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST IMPUGNED PASSED

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2598/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 KOHINOOR DYEING & PRINTING MILLS PVT. LTD., 3/2157-58, VIJAY BAUG, SALABATPURA, SURAT 395 002. [PAN: AABCK 0123 G] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT DATED 10.07.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: (1) THAT ON FACTS, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,87,460/- LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK-IN- PROGRESS. (2) THAT ON FACTS, EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND IN LAW, THE ENTIRE PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED AS PRAYED FOR. ASSESSEE BY SHRI MEHUL K.PATEL AR DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.P.RASTOGI SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 18.07.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.07.2019 2 (3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 20.12.2010 AT THE INCOME OF RS.60,67,624/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5,51,505/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND RS.18,28,621/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT AND DISALLOWANCE OF LATE PAYMENT OF EPF OF RS.95,154/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.09.2011 DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT OF RS.18,28,621/- BUT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,51,505/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.1,87,460/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.03.2013. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.07.2014 DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE INFORMATION IN ITS RETURN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WHICH HAS PARTLY BEEN ALLOWED 3 THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.5,51,505/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WORK IN PROGRESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE RETURN MERELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. HE REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE DELETED BY THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED EACH AND EVERY MATERIAL IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, NOTHING NEW HAS DETECTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE THREE ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED ONE ADDITION OF RS.18,28,621/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT AND CONFIRMED ONLY RS.5,51,505/- ON WHICH THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN LEVIED. 8. IN OUR VIEW, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW BECAUSE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MATERIAL, FALSE OR BOGUS AGAINST THE PENALTY ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE CAN BE PENALIZED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF 4 THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19-07-2019. SD/- SD/- (O.P. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/07/2019 / GANGADHARA RAO.S COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. PR.CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR / / TRUE COPY / / / / TRUE COPY / / ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT