DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Bhushan Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2604/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74367 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA MISRA
• Keywords: Revised return; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH A AA A : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .2557/DEL/2013 2557/DEL/2013 2557/DEL/2013 2557/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 0808 08 M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, F FF F- -- -BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 ST STST ST FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, INTERNAT INTERNAT INTERNAT INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, IONAL TRADE TOWER, IONAL TRADE TOWER, IONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AAACB1247M. AAACB1247M. AAACB1247M. AAACB1247M. VS. VS. VS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -13, 13, 13, 13, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO.2604/DEL/2013 .2604/DEL/2013 .2604/DEL/2013 .2604/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 2007 2007 2007- -- -08 0808 08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOM INCOM INCOM INCOME TAX, E TAX, E TAX, E TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -13, 13, 13, 13, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. VS. VS. VS. VS. M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, F FF F- -- -BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 ST STST ST FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI NEW DELHI 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. PAN : AAACB1247M. PAN : AAACB1247M. PAN : AAACB1247M. PAN : AAACB1247M. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA. REVENUE BY : SMT. ANURADHA MISRA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI DA TED 8 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 FOR THE AY 2007-08. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDE R:- ITA-2557 & 2604/D/2013 2 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT I N LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.3,17,93,089/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IMPOSED BY AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAD WILLFULLY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER DATED 08-02-2013 PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) I, NEW DELHI IS AGAINST LAW AND F ACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DIREC T THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO REVENUE EXPENDITURE-VERIFY THE FACTS FROM THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND RECOMPUTING THE PENALTY LEVIABLE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961. 2. THAT THE ORDER DATED 08-02-2013 PASSED U/S 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) I, NEW DELHI IS AGAINST LAW AND F ACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE SAID ORDER TANTAMOUNTS TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER L EVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTIN G TO ` 3,17,93,089/- VIDE ORDER DATED 27 TH JUNE, 2012. LEARNED CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-VERIFY THE FACTS FROM THE VARIOU S ORDERS AND RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE. THE RELEVANT FINDI NG OF LEARNED CIT(A) READS AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. NO DOUBT THE APPEL LANT HAS BEEN COMMITTING ERRORS IN COMPUTING THE INCOME UN DER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISI ONS OF INCOME-TAX LAW. THIS FACT STANDS ADMITTED IN THE REPEATED REVISED RETURNS/REVISION OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS FILED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME. TH E APPELLANT IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND IT REQUIRE S BEING ITA-2557 & 2604/D/2013 3 MORE CAREFUL IN THE WAY IT COMPLIES WITH THE LAW. H OWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION HAVE NOT REACHED FINALITY AND TO THAT EXTENT THE PENALTY ORD ER APPEARS PREMATURE. IT ALSO APPEARS THAT A RECTIFICAT ION ORDER HAS BEEN SINCE PASSED U/S 154 IN THE QUANTUM CASE . I HAVE ALSO DISPOSED OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) VIDE AN ORDER OF EVEN DATE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ALL THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, REVENUE EXPENDITURE-VERIFY THE FACTS FR OM THE VARIOUS ORDERS AND REVENUE EXPENDITURE-COMPUTE TH E PENALTY LEVIABLE. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES, AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR STATED THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND, IN SUCH ORDER GIVING APPEAL E FFECT, HE HIMSELF HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIA BLE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL SHOULD BE TREATED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. SO FAR AS REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED, LEARNED CI T-DR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, STATED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS, THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, V IDE ORDER DATED 23 RD MAY, 2013 IN ITA NO.700 & 701/DEL/2012, SUSTAINED TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CANCELING PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C). 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF ` 3,17,93,089/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ITA-2557 & 2604/D/2013 4 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF L EARNED CIT(A), THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCE D ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH 4, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CANCELL ED THE PENALTY. HE HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ALL T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, RE-VERIFY VARIOUS FACTS FROM VARIOUS O RDERS AND RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE. THEREFORE, APPAREN TLY, THE REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL IS MISCONCEIVED. IF AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS AND THE VARIOUS ORDERS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENTLY HAS ARRIVE D AT THE CONCLUSION THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) I S LEVIABLE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS RECO RDED THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT THERE WERE SOME ERRORS IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND ALSO UNDER TH E SPECIAL PROVISIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE REP EATED REVISED RETURNS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE IS SOME RECTIFICAT ION ORDER AND ALSO THE APPELLATE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT(A) ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER ALL THESE CIR CUMSTANCES, RE- VERIFY THE FACTS FROM VARIOUS ORDERS AND RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY LEVIABLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDE R OF LEARNED CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND DISMISS BOTH THESE A PPEALS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS T HE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI BHAVNESH SAINI) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 21.03.2014 VK. ITA-2557 & 2604/D/2013 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, M/S BHUSHAN STEELS LIMITED, F FF F- -- -BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 BLOCK, 1 ST STST ST FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, FLOOR, INTERNATIONAL TRADE TOWER, NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. 110 019. 2. RESPONDENT : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE- -- -13, NEW DELHI. 13, NEW DELHI. 13, NEW DELHI. 13, NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR