The ACIT2(1), Bhopal V. M/s Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Betul

ITA 267/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 26722714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA; H P VERMA MISS SAKSHI VERMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Charitable institution; Wrong claim
• Section: 12A

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 267/IND/2013 A.Y. 2005-06 ACIT-2(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, BAITUL PAN AAAAK 5277 G :: RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI H.P. VERMA, MISS SAKSHI VERMA & SHRI N.D. PATWA DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 19.12.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19.12.2013 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 6.2.2013 OF THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, INDORE WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF THE PE NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 2. DURING HEARING, THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED ITS INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THEREFORE, TH E PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED, CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION RELIED U PON BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. (201 0) 322 ITR 158 (SC) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUBMITTING THAT STATUTORY RES ERVES WERE CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS FULL DISCLOSUR E OF FACTS, THEREFORE, NEITHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT NOR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON TH E AFORESAID DECISION FROM HON'BLE APEX COURT IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE MARKET COMMITTEE WAS CONSTITUTED BY THE NO TIFICATION OF GOVT. OF MP AND IS GOVERNED AND RUN UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF MADHYA PRADESH KRISHI UPAJ MANDI ADHINIYAM, 1972. T HE 3 ASSESSEE DECLARED LOSS OF RS.10,67,038/- IN ITS RET URN, FILED ON 31.10.2005. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMIN ED THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.3,43,305/- MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF AARAKSHIT NID HI AT RS.1,85,426/-, SURAKSHIT NIDHI AT RS.4,63,565/- AND INTEREST ON FDR ON STHAI NIDHI AT RS.2,62,464/- ALONG WITH DEPRECIATION AT RS.4,79,663/- ETC. THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITIONS AMOUNT ING TO RS.13,91,548/- WERE AFFIRMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.4,50,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER D ATED 31.3.2007. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS.2,62,464/- ON THE INTE REST EARNED ON FDR FROM SURAKSHA NIDHI AMOUNT, WHICH WAS NOT DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST T HIS PART RELIEF AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4 3.1 IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSERTI ON MADE BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND THE MATERIAL AVAI LABLE ON RECORD ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION, WE NOTE THAT SO F AR AS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF SURAKSHA NIDH I, AARAKSHIT NIDHI ETC. ARE CONCERNED, THE TRIBUNAL HA D BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW. IT IS ALSO UNCONTROVERTED FACT THAT THE MATERIAL FACTS FOR MAKING OF ALLEGED CLAIM WERE DUL Y DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EVEN IF A WRONG CLAIM H AS BEEN MADE, IT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACC URATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS WAS HELD BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUP RA). IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, NEITHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INC OME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR AS HAS BEEN CAN VASSED BY THE LD. SR. DR. EVEN OTHERWISE, NO SUCH MATERIAL HA S BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SUBSTANTIATE TH E CONTENTION RAISED IN THE GROUND. EVEN OTHERWISE, PE NALTY AND QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT. WE F URTHER NOTE 5 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12A OF THE ACT BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 14.8.2008 AS CHARITABLE INSTITUTION W.E.F. 1.4.2002, PURSUANT TO ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 11.4.2008. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAW N IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE IMPUGNED GROUND. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 19.2.2013. SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 19.12.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE !VYAS!