DCIT, HISAR CIRCLE, Hisar V. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Hisar

ITA 4232/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8137 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4230/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) ITA No.4231/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11) ITA No.4232/Del/2019 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, Hisar. Vs. M/s Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Nagar, Delhi Road, Hisar. PAN-AABCD 0033C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Rajakumar, Adv. Respondent by Sh. Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR ORDER PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) These three appeals by Revenue have been filed against the impugned orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Hisar [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 21.02.2019 (for Assessment Year2006-07 and 2010-11) and dated 27.02.2019 for 2 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Assessment Year 2008-09). For the sake of convenience, a consolidated order is being passed for these appeals. Grounds taken in these appeals of Revenue are as under: ITA No.4230/Del/2019 for A.Y.2008-09 “1. That On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Municipal Taxes does not fall under the purview of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the version that expenses are not debited in profit and loss account as such not disallowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act and accordingly not covered within ambit of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas in quantum appeal of the assesse, on the issue of Municipal Tax the addition made by the AO has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No 191/HSR/14-15 dated 30.03.2016. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), Hisar erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 in connection with disallowance made 2,93,40,534/- on a/c of cost variance reserve by ignoring the fact that department has filed further appeal against the order dated 30.03.2016 passed by CIT(A), Faridabad vide which quantum addition has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) which is pending for disposal. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, or amend the grounds before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” ITA No.4231/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Municipal Taxes does not fall under the purview of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the version that expenses are not debited in profit and loss account as such not disallowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act and accordingly not covered within ambit of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas in quantum appeal of the assesse, on the issue of Municipal Tax the addition made by the AO has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No 34/HSR/TFR/13-14 dated 24.10.2016. 3 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, or amend the grounds before the appeal is heard and disposed off. ITA No.4232/Del/2019 for A.Y. 2006-07 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that addition made u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act, in respect of Municipal Taxes does not fall under the purview of furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the version that expenses are not debited in profit and loss account as such not disallowable u/s 43B of the Income Tax Act and accordingly not covered within ambit of inaccurate particulars of income, whereas in quantum appeal of the assesse, on the issue of Municipal Tax the addition made by the AO has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in appeal No 192/HSR/14-15 dated 30.03.2016. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, or amend the grounds before the appeal is heard and disposed off.” (B) During the appellate proceedings in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, (“ITAT”, for short) a consolidated paper book has been filed from the assessee’s side, containing the following particulars in respect of these three appeals: 1. Copies of Penalty notices u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act for AY 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 2. Copy of ITAT Quantum Order dated 24.12.2019 for AY 2006-07 in ITA Nos. 3217 & 3411 /Del/16 3. Copy of ITAT Quantum Order dated 19.02.2020 for AY 2008-09 & 2011-12 in ITA Nos. 3412 & 3413/Del/l 6 4. Copy of ITAT Quantum Order dated 24.12.2019 for AY 2010-11 in ITA No. 03/Del/17 5. Copy of ITAT Penalty u/s 271(1) (c) order dated 10.08.2017 for AY 2005-06 4 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (B.1) On perusal of records, we find from perusal of records, that Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.3,91,46,114/-, in respect of additions totaling Rs.11,62,98,617/-. These additions totaling aforesaid amount of Rs.11,62,98,617/- already stand deleted by ITAT vide aforesaid order dated 24.12.2019 of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in ITA Nos.3217 & 3411/Del/2016. Likewise, in Assessment Year 2008-09, penalty has been levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.4,16,78,270/- in respect of total additions amounting to Rs.12,26,19,202/-. However, the aforesaid additions of Rs.12,26,19,202/- stand already deleted by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi vide aforesaid order dated 19.02.2020. Similarly, in Assessment Year 2010-11, penalty amounting to Rs.13,68,94,219/- has been levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act in respect of additions totaling Rs.40,27,48,513/-. However, aforesaid additions of Rs.40,27,48,513/- stand already deleted by Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi vide aforesaid order dated 19.12.2019 in ITA No.03/Del/2017 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 5 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (B.1.1) Vide aforesaid impugned orders dated 21.02.2019 and 27.02.2019; the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the aforesaid penalties levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act, amounting to Rs.4,16,78,270/- for Assessment Year 2008-09, amounting to Rs.13,68,94,219/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 and amounting to Rs.2,91,46,114/- for Assessment Year 2006-07. The present appeals before us have been filed by Revenue against the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) whereby she deleted all these penalties. (B.1.2) At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer have no legs to stand because the corresponding quantum additions amounting to Rs.11,62,98,617/- for Assessment Year 2008-09; amounting to Rs.12,26,19,202/- for Assessment Year 2010-11 and amounting to Rs.40,27,48,513/- for Assessment Year 2006-07: stand already deleted by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi vide aforesaid orders dated 24.12.2019, 19.02.2020 and 19.12.219. Therefore, he submitted, the present appeals filed by the 6 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Department against impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) should be dismissed. (B.2) The Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative [“D.R” for short] for Revenue relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. However, he did not dispute the facts that quantum additions in respect of which penalties were levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2006-07; stand already deleted by orders of Co-ordinate Bench, Delhi vide aforesaid orders dated 24.12.2019, 19.02.2020 & 19.12.2019 (B.2.1) As the quantum additions in respect of which penalties u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act have been levied by the Assessing Officer, stand already deleted by orders of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Delhi, we are in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for assessee, that the penalties levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1) (c) of Income Tax Act have no legs to stand; and that the Departmental appeals against the impugned appellate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) deserve to be dismissed. We take support from the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.C. 7 ITA Nos.4230, 4231 & 4232 /Del/2019 DCIT vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Builders vs. ACIT 135 Taxman 461 (SC). In view of the foregoing, the present three appeals by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. (F) In the result, all the three appeals by Revenue are dismissed. This order was already pronounced orally on 24 th February, 2022 in Open Court, in the presence of representatives of both sides, after conclusion of the hearing. Now this order in writing is signed today on 28.02.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28.02.2022 Pk Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI