DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. K.L. Concast (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2806/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4692 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL CHOURASIA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2806/DEL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DCIT, CIRCLE 14 (1), NEW DELHI. VS. M/S. K.L. CONCAST (P) LTD., Z 18, LOHA MANDI, NARAINA, NEW DELHI 110 028. ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAHUL CHOURASIA, CA REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT JAIN, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AS SAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2015 OF CIT (A )-V, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2009-10 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RE -COMPUTE THE PENALTY AMOUNT U/S 271(1)(C). 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ERRONEOUS A ND IS NOT TENABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 3. THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OTHER. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. SENIOR DR WAS RE QUIRED TO ADDRESS THE GRIEVANCE POSED BY THE FINDING OF THE C IT (A) WHEREIN HE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE IT AT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. ON GOING THROUGH THE FINDING AT PAGE 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.02.2015, THE LD. SENIOR DR WAS UNABL E TO POINT OUT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. SENIOR DR SUBMIT TED THAT THE DATE OF HEARING 3 1 .07 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02 .0 8 .2018 ITA NO.2806/DEL/2015 2 PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED MADE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDI NGS MAY HAVE BEEN THE TRIGGERING FACTOR FOR RAISING THE GROUND. 3. THE LD. AR, MR. RAHUL CHOURASIA APPEARING ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AGGRIE VED BY THE AFORESAID FINDING AND AN APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED. HO WEVER, HE WAS UNABLE TO STATE ON WHICH DATE THE SAID APPEAL IS LI STED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD QUA THE SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE OF T HE ASSESSEE. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE SAME, WE FIND THERE IS NO OC CASION WHATSOEVER FOR THE REVENUE TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THE FINDING. TH E SPECIFIC FINDING OF THE CIT (A) IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : - I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBM ISSION AND DISCUSSED THE MATTER WITH THE AR VERY CAREFULLY . THE APPELLANT HAD PAID INTEREST @18% PER ANNUM TO 10 PA RTIES (DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES) ON DEPOSITS MADE BY THEM IN THE COMPANY AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION IN P&L A/C. THE AO FO UND THAT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST WAS EXCESSIVE AND UNREASONABL E. SO HE MADE IT 12% INTEREST PER ANNUM AND THUS GAVE DEDUCT ION ACCORDINGLY. IN THE PROCESS, HE DISALLOWED RS.63,04 ,151/- IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 26.12.201 1 (PAGE 16 OF ASSTT. ORDER). THE ITAT, DELHI HAD ALLOWED 16 % OF INTEREST PER ANNUM AGAINST AO'S ALLOWANCE OF 12% INTEREST. T HUS FINALLY, THE DISALLOWANCE AFTER IT AT ORDER WAS RS.15,76,038 /- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST DISALLOWANCE TO DIRECTORS AND T HEIR RELATIVES, HUF CONCERNS. THE OTHER DISALLOWANCE WAS RS.729/- O N LATE DEPOSIT OF TDS. THESE TWO FIGURES CAME OUT TO BE DI FFERENCE BETWEEN RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME ON WHIC H THE AO IS DIRECTED TO IMPOSE MINIMUM PENALTY @100% ON TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE MINIMU M TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.15,76 ,767/- (RS.15,76,038 + RS.729), AND COLLECT THE PENALTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4.1 ACCORDINGLY, ON A READING OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND NO GRIEVANCE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE ARISEN AS FAR AS THE REVE NUE IS CONCERNED. ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSING THE REVENUES APPEAL, WE LE AVE THE ISSUE OF CORRECTNESS OF THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) O PEN FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL STATED TO HA VE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. ASSESSEE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO ASSAIL T HE FINDING OF THE CIT (A) ON MERITS IN TERMS OF THE GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL WHICH IS ITA NO.2806/DEL/2015 3 STATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED AND THE COORDINATE BENCH WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES ON MERITS WHEREIN THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT (A), IT IS NOTED, IS ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IS STATED TO BE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE ITAT. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 2 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2018 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS)-V, NEW DELHI 5. DR: ITAT TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI