DCIT (LTU), New Delhi V. M/s. SIEL Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3074/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7265 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 27-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TARAN DEEP
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI O.P. KANT ITA NO. 3074 /DEL/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998 - 99 DCIT, VS. SIEL LTD., NBCC PLAZA, PUSHP VIHAR, (NOW KNOWN AS MA RWANA NEW DELHI. SUGAR LTD.), RAJENDRA PLACE, NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAAC S4902Q ) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TARAN DEEP, ADV. DEPARTM ENT BY: SMT. ANIMA BARNWAL , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 21 . 0 3 .201 6 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 : 0 6 .201 6 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR : JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WHEREIN THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY OF RS,.41,47,482 LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE DECIS IONS RELIED UPON. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED 2 DEDUCTION OF RS.2,22,34,324 UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT DATED 25.1.2001 DISALLOWED AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.1,18,49,950 OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIMANT OF RS.2,22,34,324. OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.1,18,49,950 DEDUCTION OF RS.1 CRORES WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS THAT PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER COMPANY, NAMELY, TECUMSEH PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. (TPIL) AND ACCORDINGLY THE LIABILITY WAS ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND SAME WAS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.18,49,950 WAS NOT ALLOWED FOR THE REASON THAT AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. BOTH THESE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ) AS WELL AS BY THE ITAT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT AND FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.41,47,482. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELE TED THE PENALTY WHICH HAS BEEN QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 3 4. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED SENIOR DR HAS BASICALLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PENALTY ORDER . THE LEARNED AR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY FIRST APPELLATE ORDER . 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY MAINLY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF TOWARDS THE ADDITIONS M ADE AND SUSTAINED IN THE QUANTUM MATTERS. REGARDING CLAIM OF RS.1 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY, IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT A SPECIFIC NOTE WAS GIVEN IN ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THIS PAYMENT, REPRODUCED AT PAGE NOS. 3 AND 4 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. REGAR DING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.18,49,950, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND DETAILS THEREOF WERE SPECIFICALLY GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME SUPPORTED WITH CERTIFICA TE FROM CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT PAYMENT HAD DULY BEEN MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION STATING THAT ABOVE AMOUNT HAD BEEN DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS PER THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT DISPUTE THE EVIDENCE IN REGARD TO PAYMENT OF THE LIABILITY DURING THE YEAR . THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS 4 THE ABOVE A DDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD IN THE QUANTUM MATTERS. IN ABSENCE OF FULFILLMENT EITHER OF THE ABOVE TWO MANDATORY INGREDIENCE THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, PENAL PROVISIONS UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INITIATED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS THUS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IN QUESTION FOLLOWING THE RATIOS LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS CITED BELOW: I) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (S.C); II) CI T VS. MAHAVIR IRRIGATION LTD. ITA NO. 1266/2009 DATED 3.8.2011 (DEL.); 7. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING PENALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL N OT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN QUESTION IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE 5 ABOVE CITED DECISIONS, HENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SAME IS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 . 0 6 . 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( O.P . K A NT ) ( I.C. S UDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 / 0 6 /201 6 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR D ATE DRAFT DICTATED DIRECTLY ON COMPUTER 15 . 0 6 .201 6 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15 . 0 6 .2016 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 15 .0 6 .2016 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/P S 16 . 0 6 .2016 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 15 .0 6 .2016 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16 . 0 6 .2016 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.