Genesis Associates P.Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

ITA 5409/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Genesis Associates Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi, pertaining to the Assessment Year 2014-15. The dispute centered on the classification of a payment of Rs. 55,00,000 made by the assessee, which was claimed to be custom duty but was treated as a penalty by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee argued that the payment was not a penalty and provided no documentary evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the lower authorities that the payment was penal in nature due to the absence of supporting documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 121807 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 271(1)(c); 43B; 234B; 37(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘C’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5409/DEL/2018 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/s Genesis Associates Pvt. Ltd. 19, Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-10(1), New Delhi PAN-AAACG4978Q Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.10.2023 Date of Pronouncement 17.10.2023 ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-35, New Delhi, dated 22.06.2018 pertaining to Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- 1. That the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law as well as on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the action of Assessing officer in assessing the additional custom duty of Rs.55,00,000/- deposited on account of revaluation of the assessable value of imports as penalty deposited and disallowing the same under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the finding of Assessing Officer that the amount deposited is in the nature of penalty and not in nature of custom duty. 2 ITA No.5409/Del/2018 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred incharging interest under section 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee in this case has claimed Rs.55 lakhs as payment made towards custom duty during the year as a result of recalculation on revaluation of assessable value of the import under the Custom Act. The assessee has claimed that the Custom Authority had demanded Rs.3,45,91,494/- by way of addition custom duty in respect of imports during the years 2010 to 2013 as a result of survey conducted by them by issuing a show cause notice in respect of the said demand and the assessee had paid Rs.55 lakhs being amount demanded by the custom department. The assessee further claimed that there is no adjudication in the matter by the Custom Department and amount paid not in the nature of penalty. However, no correspondence or copy of show cause notice or other documents to prove the claim of the assessee was furnished by the assessee. In these circumstances, the Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 37(1) of the Act and disallowed the same. 4. Against the above order, the assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on the basis that the assessee has not produced the notice of demand raised by the Custom Department. Hence, it cannot be ascertained whether it is custom duty or penalty. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded as under:- “The AO has stated that the appellant company has claimed deduction u/s 43B on account of Custom Duty paid amounting to Rs.55,00,000/- and the above amount of Rs. 55,00,000/- 3 ITA No.5409/Del/2018 has been claimed as deduction on account of custom duty paid which is penal in nature. The AO held that as the appellant had failed to produce the notice of demand raised from the Customs department thus, the AO concluded that the same has been paid as penalty due to the violation of law under the Customs Act of the Imports. I find no reason to interfere with the AO's order on this issue, the addition is upheld and the appeal on this ground is dismissed.” 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Upon careful consideration, we find that the assessee has claimed that the assessee has paid custom duty of Rs.55 lakhs, however, no documentary evidence have been shown that sum paid is custom duty or penalty levied. In these circumstances, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be faulted. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. CITA) and decide the issue against the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17 th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [YOGESH KUMAR US] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Delhi; 17.10.2023. f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ?f{x~{tÜ? f{x~{tÜ? Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi