SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 40/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5165 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: J M VYAS
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 40/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE PVT LTD., 04, HATHROI MARKET, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAGCS 2700 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA(ADVOCATE) & SHRI J.M. VYAS (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (A``DDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/08/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 20.11.2015 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 16.0 5.2013 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. RS. 1,60,000/-: THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WEL L AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS 1,60,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) IMPOSED BY THE AO. THE PENALTY SO CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE ADDITIONS MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOUR INDULGENCES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER OF OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE D ATE OF HEARING. 2 ITA NO. 40/JP/2016 M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE P. LTD. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 24.01.2013. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 9,73,203/- IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST PAID. THIS AMOUNT IS FOUND INCLUSIVE OF INTEREST PAID ON THE FUNDS BORROWED FOR PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX. HENCE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE SUM OF RS . 4,55,219/- BEING THE EXPENDITURE RELATED TO INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN AM OUNT BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF INCOME-TAX. THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 1,60,000/- UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AS SESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L. 4. THE EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW WE RE NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MER ELY BECAUSE AN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED ALBEIT WRONGLY, IT DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE AO TO IMPOSE PENALTY. THE LD. COUNSEL IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HAS RELIED UPO N THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS UNDER :- CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) 3 ITA NO. 40/JP/2016 M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE P. LTD. K.C. BUILDERS VS. ASSTT. CIT (2004) 265 ITR 562 (SC) CIT VS. DALIMA DYECHEM INDUSTRIES LTD. (2015) 93 CCH 160 (MUM. HC) CIT VS. O.P. LOHIA (2007) 167 TAXMAN 217 (DEL. HC) CIT VS. DHARAMPAL PREMCHAND LTD. 329 ITR 572 (DEL.) DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JCIT (2007) 210 CTR 228 (SC) CIT VS. SHYAM TEX INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2010) 48 DTR 19 PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT LTD. VS. CIT 348 ITR 306 (SC) 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D/R HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. D/R SUBMI TTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NG TECHNOLOGIES AND FINLEASE PVT. LTD. (2015) 5 7 TAXMANN.COM 389 (DELHI). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE LAWS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL WOULD NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS EXAMINED AND RIGHTL Y CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT IT HAD DEBITED THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE RELATED TO THE AMOUNT BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF INCOME- TAX. EVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HA S DULY CLAIMED INTEREST PAID OF RS 4,55,219/- ON INCOME TAX. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING. THE ASSES SEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULARS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. MERELY BE CAUSE A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE 4 ITA NO. 40/JP/2016 M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE P. LTD. WRONGLY, IT WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALTY. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTION OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT EV ERY CASE IS NOT SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF CASE S ARE SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, KEEPING THIS FACT IN VIEW, T HE UNSCRUPULOUS TAX PAYERS MAKE ATTEMPT FOR MAKING WRONG CLAIM. MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD EITHER STATEMENT SHOWING PROFESSIONAL WHO HAD PREPARED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OR BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE. NO SWORN IN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMI SSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFE RE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25.08.201 6. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 25/08/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE P. L TD., JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DY.CIT CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 40/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 5 ITA NO. 40/JP/2016 M/S. SARAOGI MANSION ESTATE P. LTD.