M/s Haryana Kashmir Transport Carriers, Yamunanagar V. ACIT, Yamunanagar

ITA 503/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5113 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTA
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 503 & 504/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09 & 2011-12 HARYANA KASHMIR TRANSPORT CARRIERS, VS. THE ACIT, C IRCLE, TRUCK ADDA, SAHARANPUR ROAD, YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR PAN NO. AACFH6023L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ROHIT GOEL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDERKANTA, ADDL. CIT DATE OF HEARING : 26.03.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.03.2018 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 16.02.2016 OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]-2, GURGAON. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS BY TH E ACTION OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS A TRANSPORTER. THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIONS, ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATING THE GP ITA NOS. 503 & 504/CHD/2016 HARYANA KASHMIR TRANSPORT CARRIERS, YAMUNANAGAR 2 RATE AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE AS SESSEE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO I.E. BY ESTIMATING THE GP RATE, HOWEVER, NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE DEPARTMEN T FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITI ON BY WAY OF ESTIMATING THE GP, HOWEVER, NO PENALTY PROCEEDING WERE INITIA TED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS EXAMINED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY EXERCISING HIS REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT, IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH, ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT O F INSURANCE CLAIM WAS MADE. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENA LTY IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE HIM IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE C LAIM. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE DEPARTMENT IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GP PROFIT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 & ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THERE WAS NEITHER A CASE OF FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INSU RANCE CLAIM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ISSUE OF MAKING ADDITION INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INSURANCE CALM IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. HE HAS FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ITA NOS. 503 & 504/CHD/2016 HARYANA KASHMIR TRANSPORT CARRIERS, YAMUNANAGAR 3 DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ,CIT VS. SANGRUR VANASPAT I MILLS LTD (2008) (2) TMI 285 (P&H) IN THIS RESPECT. 5. AT THIS STAGE, A COURT QUERY WAS PUT TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AS TO IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE REJECTED IN T HE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO AND FURTHER THE INCOME WAS ESTIMATED ON G P RATE, WHY DID NOT THE ASSESSEE TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAINTAIN THE P ROPER ACCOUNTS AND REMOVE THE DISCREPANCY BECAUSE OF WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED. LD. COUNSEL IN THIS RESPECT HAS SUBMITTE D THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING THE AD DITION ON ESTIMATION BASIS HAD BEEN PASSED ON 27.4.2011, WHEREAS, THE RE TURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 HAD FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 29.9.200 8. SO FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNS EL HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCIAL YEAR WAS ALREADY OVER ON 30.4.2011 AN D THE ACCOUNTS HAD ALREADY BEEN FINALIZED, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY IT WOULD BE ACCE PTED AS SUCH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, NO SUCH ADDI TIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES INTO THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE. 6. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE AND OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER ITA NOS. 503 & 504/CHD/2016 HARYANA KASHMIR TRANSPORT CARRIERS, YAMUNANAGAR 4 CONSIDERATION, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN T HE EYES OF LAW; THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY ORDERED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.03.2018 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26.03.2018 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR