M/s RayBan Sun Optics India Ltd., Bhiwani V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5328/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 532820114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN BANSAL
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JM ITA NO.5328/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 RAYBAN SUN OPTICS INDIA LTD., SP 810-811, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE II, ROAD NO.20, BHIWANI. PAN : AABCR8209B VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 15(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ARUN BANSAL, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 18.07.2013 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. ITA NO.5328/DEL/2013 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC FOR A PARTICULAR AMOUNT. THE A O DID NOT AGREE WITH ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF THE COMPUTATION OF SUCH DEDUCTION. HE, THEREFORE, REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HH C. THIS LED TO THE IMPOSITION AND CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ). 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND IT AS AN ADMITTED POSIT ION THAT THE PENALTY UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS IMPOSED BY THE AO SIMPLY FO R THE REASON THAT THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TALLY WITH SUCH COMPUTATION MADE BY THE AO. IT GOE S WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION IS COMPUTED BY THE AUD ITOR OF THE COMPANY, WHO IS OBLIGED TO CALCULATE THE SAME IN THE PRESCRI BED FORM. BUT, FOR THAT, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS DEDUCTION BY DISCLOSING ALL THE NECESSARY FACTS IN THIS REGARD. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) , HAS HELD THAT THE MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF WILL NOT ATTRACT PENALTY. WHEN T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHES ALL ITA NO.5328/DEL/2013 3 THE PARTICULARS IN RETURN WHICH ARE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, IT IS ONLY UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE RETURN OR NOT. IN NO CASE, THIS CAN CALL FOR IMPOSITION OF ANY PENALTY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) HAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED FOR A BONA FIDE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN WE CONSIDER THE RATIO OF THESE TWO JUDGMENTS IN JUXTAPOSITION TO THE FACTUAL POSITION PREVAILING BE FORE US, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WHICH FOLLOWS IS THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT TH E COMPUTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TALLY WITH THAT MADE BY THE AO. OVERTURNING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF PENALT Y. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02.20 15. SD/- SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 04 TH FEBRUARY, 2015. ITA NO.5328/DEL/2013 4 DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.