Bhairav Alloys Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. Income Tax Officer,Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3265/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9647 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Wrong claim

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.3265/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) BHAIRAV ALLOYS PVT.LTD. 501, SAMRUDHHI BUILDINGS OPP. OLD HIGH COURT, PO NAVJIVAN AHMEDABAD-380 014 / VS. THE ITO WARD-1(1)(4) AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABCB 1787 F ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) ' $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR #' % $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.PANDA, SR.DR &'( % ) / DATE OF HEARING 11/02/2016 *+, % ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18/02/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 24/08/2015 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- ITA NO.3265/AHD /2015 BHAIRAV ALLOYS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - [1] THE HON.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.ACT OF RS.60,778/- CONSIDE RING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT HE HAS FURNISHED THE FU LL FACTS OF THE INCOME AND FURNISHED THE ARGUMENT FOR WHY THIS INCO ME IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S.80IB. [2] THE HON.CIT(A) WAS ALSO WRONG FOR NOT CONSIDERI NG THE HON.SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN CASE RELIANCE PETRO P RODUCTS WHICH IS FULLY APPLICABLE IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. [3] THE APPELLANT THEREFORE REQUESTS YOUR HONOUR TO KINDLY DELETE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) LOOKING TO T HE MERITS OF THE CASE. [4] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER , EDIT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 23/12/2010, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.80IB OF THE A CT OF RS.1,78,807/-. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 13/03/2014 AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.60 ,778/-. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.3265/AHD /2015 BHAIRAV ALLOYS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 3. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEING DEBATABLE, THEREFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY. HE SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF DEDUC TION WAS REJECTED THAT WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALTY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. REPORTED AT (2010) 322 ITR 0 158 (SC) AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. REPORTED AT (201 3) 214 TAXMAN 94 (GUJ.). 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME WHILE CLAIMING A WRONG DEDUCTION FOR WHICH IT IS LIABLE F OR PENALTY. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT TH E PENALTY IS LEVIED ON THE ITEMS WHICH WERE DISALLOWED FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT. UNDER ITA NO.3265/AHD /2015 BHAIRAV ALLOYS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - THE IDENTICAL FACTS THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD.(SUPRA) HAS DECID ED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3. FROM THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, IT CAN BE SEEN TH AT PART OF THE PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER , WITH RESPECT TO THE REST, THE SAME WAS DELETED. THE TRIBUNAL CONCUR RED WITH SUCH VIEW OF CIT (APPEALS). SEVERAL ADDITIONS WERE STRUCK DOW N IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ITSELF AND WERE SENT FOR RECONSIDERATION . WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, THE AUTHORITIES HELD THAT THE CLAIM CANNOT BE STATED TO BE A WRONG CLAIM. RELYING ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUC TS (P.) LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 TAXMAN 322 (SC), SUCH PENALTY WAS D ELETED. 4. TO OUR MIND, THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS BASED ON APPREC IATION OF FACTS. SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE PENALTY DELETED AROSE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONS NOT BEING SUSTAINED. TO THE LIMITED EXTENT SUCH PEN ALTY RELATED DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80 1A OF THE ACT, BY VIRTUE OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRO DUCTS (P.) LTD., (SUPRA), PENALTY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED. NO QU ESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 4.1. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HO NBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. REPORTED AT (2010) 322 ITR 0158 (SC) AND ALSO THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAMA MULTI TECH LTD. REPORTED AT (2013) 214 TAXMAN 94 (GUJ.), WE HEREBY DIRECT THE A O TO DELETE THE PENALTY. THUS, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.3265/AHD /2015 BHAIRAV ALLOYS PVT.LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 18/ 02 /2016 0)..& , '.&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-1, AHMEDABAD 5. 5'6 &23 , ) 23 , , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 689 :( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #5 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 15.2.16 (DICTATION-PAD 6+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER .. 17.2.16 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.18.2.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18.2.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER