DCIT, Mohali V. The Ropar Distt Co-operative Milk Producer Union Ltd., Mohali

ITA 341/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57644 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 341 & 342/CHD/2010 AY: 1994-95 & 1995-96 DCIT, C-6(1), V THE ROPAR DISTT.COOP. MOHALI. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD. MOHALI. PAN: AAAAT-5977G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.R.SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.2.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.12.2009 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) CHANDIGARH. AS THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. ITA NOS. 341/CHD/2010 AND 342/CHD/2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1995-96 RESPECTIVELY C ONTAIN THE SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, GROUNDS O F APPEAL IN ITA NO.341/CHD/2010 ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 2 ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) VIDE HER ORDER DATED 16.12.2009 IN APPEAL NO. 160/P/2009-10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) AS THE ASSESSMENT HAD CLAIMED WRONG DEDUCTION THEREBY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CARVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'DR' PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS ALSO ON THE DECISION IN THE CA SE OF ITO V SRU KNITTERS PVT.LTD. 110 TTJ 671. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. 'AR' CONTENDED THAT FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95, CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS AL LOWED BY THE DCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-I, CHANDIGARH, WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR PASSED ON 03.11.2010, DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE A CT. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80I OF THE ACT FOR BOTH THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1994-95 AND 1995-96. SIMILARLY, ITAT, 3 CHANDIGARH IN ITA NO. 774 & 775/CHD/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND 1994-95 RESPECTIVELY, UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ORDER PASSED ON 31.10.2011. LD. 'AR' WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS THE REVENUE HAD EARLIER ALLOWED ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER PLEADED TH AT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.(2010) 322 ITR 158 (S.C) AND THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V BUDH EWAL COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD.(2009) 312 ITR 92 (P&H) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE WRONG, BUT NOT FALSE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A), ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTU AL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UOI & OTHERS V DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS & OTHERS , 306 ITR 2 77 (S.C), ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST L EVY OF PENALTY BY THE AO. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FACTS AND SITUATIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY T HE 4 HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD.(SUPRA), THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID DECISION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO B E COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY , THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEL D GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORD ER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE , NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. 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 QUESTIO N OF INVITING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKIN G OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSE LF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM 5 MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 7. THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V SHAHBAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 73 (P&H). 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSIO NS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A F ALSE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80I OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE. THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE UPH ELD AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, IN ITA NO. 341 & 342/CHD/2010 ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS. 341 & 342/CHD/2010 (A.Y. 1994-95 & 1995-96) ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH FEB. 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR S INGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 14 TH FEB., 2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH