ACIT, Gurgaon V. M/s Beekman Helix India Consulting P. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 4886/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77777 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARVINDER KAUR
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4886/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ACIT VS. M/S.BEEKMAN HEIIX INDIA CONSULTING P. LTD. CIRCLE 1 (1) 310, A-BLOC K, 3 RD FLOOR, GURGAON IRIS TECH PA RK, SOHNA ROAD, SECTOR-48 GURGAON (PAN AA CCB88655R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDEN T) APPELLANT BY : S MT. PARVINDER KAUR, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK MALIK, ADVOCATE ORDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DEPARTME NT IS DIRECTED AGAINST CIT(A) ORDER DATED 21.6.2013. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. 2. THE SOLITARY ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONS IDERATION IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,37,711/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS :- ITA NO. 4886/DEL/13 2 THAT ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 19.11.2009 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,65,71,920/- WHEREBY THE AO MADE THE FOLLOW ING DISALLOWANCES :- (I) CALL OPTION FEES OF RS. 53,12,500/- W AS DISALLOWED IN FULL. (II) FEASIBILITY STUDY CHARAGES OF RS. 11,93,827/- WAS TREATED AS MORTIZABLE EXPENSES U/S 35D AND 4/5 TH OF THESE WERE DISALLOWED. (III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2,13,126/- U/S 14A 4. THE ASSESEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE LD. CIT( APPEALS)-V, NEW DELHI WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2011 IN APPEAL NO 78/09- 10 DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES MENTIONED IN PO INT NO. 1 ABOVE AND UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCES MENTIONED IN POINTS NO. 2 AND 3 A BOVE. 5. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1) AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,37,711/- ON 28.03.2011. AGAINST THE PENALT Y ORDER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A} WHO VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 21.6.2013 DELETED THE ENTIRE PENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENS ES AS DEDUCTIBLE AND THOSE EXPENSES HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE A .O. LD. CIT(A) PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION IN CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODU CTS LTD. 230 CTR 320. 6. THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- I) 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BY HOLDING TH AT ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ITA NO. 4886/DEL/13 3 SAID TO HAVE CONCEALED ITS INCOME IN CASES WHERE DI SALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AD. LD. CIT(A)'S VIEW IS NOT CONFORMITY WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS P. ITD. 335 ITR 558.' II) 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSE SSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION WHILE BEING AWARE OF WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, IN WHICH CASE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS ATTRACTED AS LA ID DOWN IN CIT VS RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS P. LTD, 335 ITR 558.' III) 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR THE PERMISSION TO ADD, DELETE OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL .' 7. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITERATED THE ASSESEES SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY AND SUPPORTED THE F INDINGS OF THE CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) HAS MADE THREADBARE ANALYSIS OF DISALLOWANC E OF EXPENDITURE MADE IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT WHICH HAD RESULTED IN THE IM POSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND HAD COME TO A CORRECT CONC LUSION THAT TWO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS ONLY AN INCORRECT CLAIM AND DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE CONCLUSIONS /FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) HAV E NOT BEEN DISPELLED BY THE REVENUE. THE CIT(A)S RELIANCE ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS ON THE SUBJECT IS APT TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE REVENUE IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS (P) LTD. 335 ITR 558 (20 11 (P&H). THIS DECISION HAS BEEN TAKEN NOTE OF BY CIT(A) AT PARA 3.8 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER. THE DICTUM LAID DOWN IN CASE OF RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS (P) LTD. IS THA T INCORRECT CLAIM WOULD NOT ITA NO. 4886/DEL/13 4 TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT ASSESEE HAS ACTED WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION. THE DECI SION RELIED ON BY THE REVENUE IS IN NO WAY HELPFUL TO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. ON THE CONTRARY IT HELP THE ASSESSEES CASE. FOR THE AFORESAID REASON, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A)S ORDER IS CORRECT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 18 TH JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) ( GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 18 TH JULY, 2014 *VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT