ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. SRF Polymers Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 4920/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82077 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R R KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY , JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO. - 4920 /DEL/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 3 - 0 4 ) ACIT VS. M/S SRF POLYMERS LTD. CIRCLE 9(1) (NOW KNOWN AS KAMA ROOM NO. 163 HOLDINGS LTD.) BLOCK - C , C.R. BUILDING SECTOR - 45, GURGAON NEW DELHI. PAN: A AFCS9521A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. - 1 6 4/DEL/2014 (IN I.T.A .NO. - 4920/DEL/2012 ) (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 200 3 - 0 4 ) M/S SRF POLYMERS LTD. VS. DCIT (NOW KNOWN AS KAMA CIRCLE 9(1) , HOLDINGS LTD.) BLOCK - C, CR BUILDING, IP ESTATE, SECTOR - 45, GURGAON NEW DELHI. PAN: AAFCS9521A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: - SH. B. R. R. KUMAR , SR.DR. ASSESSEE BY: - SH. SATYEN SETHI , ADV. ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND CROSS - OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15 .0 6 .2012 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS) - XII, NEW DELHI. 2 2. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL TH E ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUNDS READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 3. IN THE CROSS - OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT (APPEAL) ERRED IN NOT DECIDING, FOLLOWING ROUNDS OF APPEAL MADE BY THE APPELLANT. A. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.10,39,960 U/S 271(1)(C ), ON ADDITIONS WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DELETED BY CIT(A). B. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS.10,39,960 U/S 271(1)(C), ON ADDITION ON WHICH DIFFERENT OPINION CAN BE FORMED AND THE ADDITION IS JUST ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE METHOD OF CALCULATION. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE: C. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY IN ITS I.T. RETUR N AND THEREFORE THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.10,39,960/ - IS BAD IN LAW. D. THAT THE LEARNED ACIT ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT COMPANY HAD MADE CLAIMS OF DED UCTION WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AND HENCE THE SAME AMOUNTED TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3 E. THE LEARNED DCIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RE LIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. F. THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE APPELLANT S CASE IS IN COMPLETE CONTRAVENTION AND DISREGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION . 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , AT THE VERY OUTSET STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALTHOUGH THE DELETED THE PENALTY ON LEGAL ISSUE , HOWEVER, HE HAD NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT . HE REQU ESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION AND DIRECTION MAY BE GIVEN TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT ALSO. THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GO NE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE SPECIFIC ISSUES ON MERIT VIDE GROUND NO S . IV TO VII WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 2 PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER . H OWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON LEGAL ISSUE WHICH WAS RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. III . THE ABOVE FACT IS CLEAR FROM LAST PARA OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER: THEREFORE, PENALTY ORDER PASSED ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011 WHICH IS BEYON D LIMITATION PERIOD AND IS TIME BARRED AS PER PROVISO OF SECTION 275(1)(A) HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED IN 4 FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 6. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERIT , WE , THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND REMAND THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED EXPEDITIOUSLY AFRESH , DE NOVO AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTM ENT AND THE CROSS - OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 /11/2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( A. T. VARKEY ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 /11/2014 *AK VERMA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR