M/s Rahul Cattle Feed, Una V. ITO, Una

ITA 468/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68370 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: R R THAKUR
• Section: 80IB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 468/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 M/S RAHUL CATTLE FEED, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL AREA, UNA (H.P.). TAJLIWAL, UNA (H.P.). PAN NO. AABFR-4038A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.R.THAKUR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 25.07.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.08.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 15.02.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : 1 THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. 2- THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)HAS ER RED TO HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN COMPUTATION OF INCOME AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INC OME. THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE MANUF ACTURE AND SALE OF CATTLE FEED. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UN DER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT AT RS.60,617/- WHICH WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO GET THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED AND FURN ISH THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND A LSO BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EMPLOYED 10 OR MORE WORKERS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENT THERETO , THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT AT RS.22,240/- WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 5. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ALL THE REQUISITE DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH THE SAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND MERELY BECAU SE THE DEDUCTION HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT MERIT LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS DHARAMPAL PREMCH AND LTD. 329 ITR 572 (DEL), CIT VS LAKHANI INDIA LTD. 324 ITR 73 (P& H) AND PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS CIT 348 ITR 306 (S. C). 6. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION T O LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS.22,240/-. THE A SSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD C LAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DENIED TO THE AS SESSEE. THE REASON FOR DENIAL OF THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE A CT WAS NON-FURNISHING 3 OF AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCB ALONGWITH THE RET URN OF INCOME, NON- AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAVING ENGAGED LESS THAN TEN WORKERS IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT THE DRIVER WAS EXCLUDED WHILE COUNTING THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT. 8. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LE VIABLE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE DEDUCTION CL AIMED UNDER SECTION 80IB OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE BEC AUSE OF CERTAIN TECHNICAL REASONS, DOES NOT TANTAMOUNTS TO FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80I B OF THE ACT. THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS.22,240/-. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE SAID PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, THUS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF AUG., 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 2 ND AUG.,2013 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH