Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd., Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-1, Baroda

ITA 2800/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5899 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH HEARING CONCLUDED O

Judgement Text

ITA NO.2800/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 PAGE 1 OF 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.2800/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER COMPANY LIMITED ..................APPELLANT P.O. PETROCHEMICALS, BARODA 391 346. [PAN : AAACG 7277 Q] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BARODA . ............................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY SANJAY R. SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT V.K. SINGH FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 20.12.2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 19.03.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IS D IRECTED AGAINST ORDER DATED 01.09.2013, PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN THE MA TTER OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HER EINAFTER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- 1. THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) I S ERRONEOUS AND NEEDS TO BE SUITABLY MODIFIED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND HENCE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT LEVIABLE. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN U PHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.23,67,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT H OLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PARTICUL ARLY WHEN VIEWED AGAINST THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED AN Y FINDING IN HIS ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED INFORMATION WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE ITA NO.2800/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02 PAGE 2 OF 2 INCORRECT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW AND THE PENALTY LEVIED BE CANCELLED. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT ME RELY BECAUSE SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A ) IN QUANTUM APPEAL IT WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT BE SO HELD NOW. 4. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING PENALTY ON A DJUSTMENT OF ADVANCE WRITTEN OFF MADE IN BOOK PROFIT FOR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PAID TAX O N BOOK PROFIT WHICH HAD BEEN DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO.29B ISSUED BY TH E CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE IN THE ACCOUNTS REGARDING THE WRITE OFF. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN OFF BY DEBIT TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C AND WAS N OT MERELY A PROVISION. THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING ANY A DJUSTMENT IN BOOK PROFIT AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT BE S O HELD NOW. 3. VIDE OUR ORDER OF EVEN DATE, THE QUANTUM REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, DURING THE COURSE OF WHICH RELATED ADDITIONS TO INCOME WERE MA DE, STAND QUASHED. 4. AS THE REASSESSMENT ITSELF STANDS QUASHED, THE P RESENT PENALTY CEASES TO HAVE A LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE FOUNDATION. WE, THEREFORE, DEL ETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY AS WELL. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) DATED: 19 TH MARCH, 2018 PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD