Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3727 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
7 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-03-2016
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
I
Next Hearing Date
08-03-2016
Assessment Year
1996-1997
Appeal Filed On
15-05-2008
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3409/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) THE DCIT, CIR.3(1), ROOM NO.607, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYKAR BHAVAN, MK ROAD, MUMBAI 400 020 ... APPELLANT VS. M/S. ICICI BANK LTD. (ERSTWHILE SCICI LTD.) ICICI BANK TOWERS, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI 400 051 PAN:AAACS 7278R .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.C.S NAIK RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AARTI VISSANJI DATE OF HEARING : 09/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/03/2016 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU,AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XXVIII, MUMBAI DATED 06/02/200 8 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN F ROM AN ORDER DATED 29/03/2005 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 ITA NO. 3409/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION. 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION UNDER SE CTION.80M OF THE I.T. ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND HAD ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF SUCH INCOME. 3. BRIEFLY PUT, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT T HE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE (ERSTWHILE SCICI LTD.) IS A PUBLIC FINANCIAL COMPAN Y AND DERIVES INCOME FROM PROJECT FINANCING COMPRISING OF FOREIGN CURRENCY LOANS, RUPEE LOANS, UNDERWRITING, DIRECT SUBSCRIPTION AND GUARANTEES, LEASING, ETC. IN ASSESSMENT FINALIZED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) ON 19/03/1999, THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.88,69,68, 576/- AS AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS.91,76,24,591/- DECLARED ORIGINAL LY ON 30/11/1996, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS TO RS.70,20,27,400/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE A SSESSED AND THE REVISED RETURNED INCOME, WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSE IS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS AND PAR TIAL DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80M OF THE ACT. ON BOTH TH ESE ISSUES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.16,34,86,145/-BEING 100% OF THE TAX S OUGHT TO BE EVADED ON SUCH DISALLOWANCES. WITH REGARD TO THE D IFFERENCE IN THE ALLOWANCE ON THE DEPRECIATION OF LEASED ASSETS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE LEASE TRANSACTIONS AND INFERRED THAT T HEY WERE MERE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND NOT LEASE TRANSACTIONS I N ACTUALITY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED WAS DENIED. FURTHER, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80M WAS ALLOWED AT RS.4,56, 95,295/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF RS.4,61,56, 863/-. ON SUCH 3 ITA NO. 3409/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) DIFFERENCES, PENALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY LEVIED ON BOTH THE LIMBS HAS SINCE BE EN DELETED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), AS ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE IS NO ELEM ENT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGAIN ST SUCH A DECISION OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE VERY BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY DOES NOT S URVIVE BECAUSE BOTH THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA VE SINCE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS VIDE ITA NO.3535/MUM/2004 DATED 25/07/2014, COPY OF WHI CH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT CONTROVE RTED THE AFORESAID FACTUAL MATRIX. 6. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL(S UPRA), IN OUR VIEW, THE ULTIMATE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(APPEALS ) IN DELETING THE PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE AFFIRMED, AS THE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, NAMELY, THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ON LEASED ASSETS AND PARTIAL DENIAL OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80M H AVE BEEN SET SET- ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL. AS A CONSEQUENCE, THE CONCL USION DRAWN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS AFFIRMED, ALBEIT ON DIFFERENT G ROUND. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/03/2016 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER MUMBAI, DATED 11/03/2016 4 ITA NO. 3409/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1996-97) VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI
