Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
358420114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-09-2014
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
29-09-2014
Assessment Year
2002-2003
Appeal Filed On
26-07-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3584/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 ITO, VS. FASHION FACTORY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD., WARD 11(2), B-252, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA, C.R. BUILDING, PHASE-1, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN NO. AAACF2660A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. TARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/10/2002 SHOWING INCOME AT RS. 8,78,760 /- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(H EREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) ON 31/01/2005 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 79,85,168/-. THE ADDITION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND 80IB OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A NOTICE DATED 31/0 1/2005 WHICH WAS ITA NO. 3584/D/2010 FASHION FACTORY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 2 SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ANOTHER NOTICES IN RESPECT OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS SENT ON 08/08/2006, 05/03/ 2007 & 17/04/2008 RESPECTIVELY. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY FILED ITS REPLY WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED IN THE PENALTY ORDER AT PAGE NO. 1, BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT @ 100% TO THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,01,669/- V IDE ORDER DATED 30/05/2008 U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3.1 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2008 ASSESSE E FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE I MPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2010 ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE. 4. NOW THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGA INST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/05/2010 PASSED BY THE CIT(A PPEAL)-XIII, NEW DELHI. 5. NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE ADDRESS AS PER RECORD AVAILABLE BY RPAD BUT IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF TH E VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSE SSEE AGAIN AND AGAIN ON THE SAME ADDRESS. THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE EX- PARTE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DR. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. DR RELIED FROM THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 30/05/2008 AND TH E CONTENTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 3584/D/2010 FASHION FACTORY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 3 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US SPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE RETURN ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DE DUCTION U/S 80HHC & 80IB AMOUNTING TO RS. 46,41,608/- AND 23,65,870/- R ESPECTIVELY. BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON 31/01/2005 U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON THESE DISALLOWANCES THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IN DISPUTE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,01,669/-. IN THE APPEAL THE LD . FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY HOLDING THAT THE ISSUES REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AND 8 0IB OF THE ACT ARE CONTROVERSIAL AND DEBATABLE AND THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND FALSE BY THE AO. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE OR DER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. UL TIMATE FASHION MAKER LIMITED DATED 29/01/2010. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUG H THE ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RIGHTLY DELETED T HE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE PRI MARY AND MATERIAL FACTS IN THE RETURN OF ITS INCOME AND HAS NOT CONCEALED I TS INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. TH E EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE COULD N OT BE SAID TO BE FALSE CLAIM AND IS ALSO DEBATABLE AND HAVING DIFFERENCE O F OPINION REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTIONS IN DISPUTE. 8. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE . ITA NO. 3584/D/2010 FASHION FACTORY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 4 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/ 09/2014 SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/09/2014 *KAVITA, P.S. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 3584/D/2010 FASHION FACTORY INTERNATIONAL P. LTD. 5
