ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Ravinder Aggarwal (HUF), New Delhi

ITA 5066/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 506620114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.5066/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ACIT, RAVINDER AGGARWAL (HUF), CIRCLE-35 (1), A-5/16, JHILMIL INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI. V. GT ROAD, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAIHR AAIHR AAIHR AAIHR- -- -7800 7800 7800 7800- -- -R RR R APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY JAIN, CIT-DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR & SHRI MANOJ AGGARWAL, ADV OCATES. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 19.8.2011. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AR E AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN BOTH FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` .1,25,36,110/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE FOR RESERVING THE RIGHT T O AMEND, MODIFY ALTER, ADD OR FOREGO ANY GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO5066/DEL/2011 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOLE PROPRIETOR ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRIC HOM E APPLIANCES UNDER THE NAME & STYLE OF M/S HARDIC INDUSTRIES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ORIGINALLY FILED ON 30.9 .2008 AT ` .11,25,36,110/- WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED ON 22.11.2 009 AT ` .1,25,36,110/-. THE WHOLE OF THE INCOME WAS CLAIMED TO BE EXEMPT IN VIEW OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT GP RATIO OF THE FIRM HAD INCRE ASED FROM 15.45% IN THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR TO 19.27% IN THE CURRENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF INCREASE IN GP RATIO TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT MANUFACTURING UN IT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SITUATED IN HIMACHAL PRADESH DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND HAD F ILED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10CCB. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF PRINC IPLE ITEMS OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED, FINISHED PRODUCTS AND BY PRODUCTS W ERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE AUDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE SAID DETAILS BUT AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER NO DETAILS WERE FILED . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED QUANT ITATIVE DETAILS OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED AND FINISHED PRODUCTS THEREFORE HE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND THERE BY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM. 3. DISSATISFIED WITH THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 1) THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB FOR FURNISHING OF P ARTICULARS IN FORM, 3CD AND PROVISIONS IN SECTION 80IC FOR FURNISHING OF FORM ITA NO5066/DEL/2011 3 10CCB WERE INDEPENDENT SECTIONS AND PARTIAL NON COMP LIANCE U/S 44AB CANNOT LEAD TO DISALLOWANCE U/S 80IC OF THE A CT. 2. THAT QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ON FORM NO.3CD WERE IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE WHICH PROBABLY GOT MISPLACED WHILE WHOLE O F THE AUDIT REPORT WAS ADMITTEDLY ON RECORD. 3. THAT LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTENDED THE PROCEEDI NGS TIME AND AGAIN AND HE HAD JUST ASKED FOR THE PERMISSION TO S UBMIT THE MISSING ANNEXURE ON THE NEXT DAY. 4. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS F ILED BY LD AR REMANDED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT TO ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS TO WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED AND REQUESTED FOR NON ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE IN THE FORM OF ANNEXURE TO THE AUDIT REPORT. 5. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DECIDED ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE NON COMPLIANCE OF REQUIREMENT OF FORM 3CD U/S 44AB CAN BE TAKEN AS N ON COMPLIANCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IC. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH T HE REMAND REPORT, ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT DEFECT IN FOR M NO.3CD CANNOT LEAD TO DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. TH E LD CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT MANUFACTURING AND TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSE SSEE WERE NOT QUESTIONED AND THE REQUIRED AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 10C CB WAS ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALSO NOT QUESTIONED. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. ITA NO5066/DEL/2011 4 7. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED WHEREIN QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE NOT FILED AND THER EFORE LD CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY GIVEN THE RELIEF. 8. THE LD AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARGUED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC WAS AD MITTED U/S 154 AND SIMILARLY IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR ALSO THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADMITED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT SECTION 80IC REQUIRES REPORT TO BE FILED IN FORM 10CCB AND FILING OF 3CD IS NOT NECESSARY TO CLAIM BENEFIT U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. HE FUR THER ARGUED THAT NEITHER FORM NO.10CCB WAS QUESTIONED, NOR BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WERE QUESTIONED AND NOR TRADING RESULTS WERE QUESTIONED. TH EREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE DEDUC TION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. 9. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT BOTH AUDI T REPORTS ARE TO BE FILED, THOUGH THE REQUIREMENT OF FILING OF AUDIT REPORT IS DIFFERENT UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUE D THAT LD AR HAD REFUSED TO SIGN THE ANNEXURE SHOWING QUANTITATIVE DETA ILS. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE OBSERVED THAT ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IC WAS NOT QUESTION ED, NOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE QUESTIONED NOR TRADING RESULTS WERE QU ESTIONED. THE ONLY REASON FOR REJECTION OF CLAIM U/S 80IC WAS NON FU RNISHING OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN FORM 3CD. FORM 3CD IS REQUIR ED TO BE FILED IN CASE OF ALL ASSESSEES WHERE THE TURNOVER OF THAT ASSESSEE EXC EEDS A PARTICULAR LIMIT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE A DMISSIBILITY OF CLAIM U/S 80IC OF THE ACT. EVEN IN CASES WHERE THERE IS A CLA IM U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT FOR ITA NO5066/DEL/2011 5 FURNISHING AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD EVEN THEN THE CL AIM OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE SUCCEEDIN G YEAR AS WELL AS IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEARS, THE CLAIMS OF THE A SSESSEE REGARDING CLAIM U/S 80IC WERE ALLOWED. THE DEFECT IN FORM 3CD CANNOT LEAD TO DENIAL OF CLAIM U/S 80IC. THEREFORE, WE HOL D THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY BECAUSE OF SOME DEFE CTS IN FORM 3CD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTE RFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 23.11.2012. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 26.9.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 19.11.2012 ITA NO5066/DEL/2011 6 DATE OF TYPING 19.11.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY 23.11.2012 BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 23.11.2012 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.