Top Travel and Tours Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5853/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 585320114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA SENIOR
• Keywords: Depreciation

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH H HH H : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .5853/DEL/2012 5853/DEL/2012 5853/DEL/2012 5853/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2006 2006 2006 2006- -- -07 0707 07 M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) LTD., LTD., LTD., LTD., L LL L- -- -3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, RANJIT NAGAR, RANJIT NAGAR, RANJIT NAGAR, RANJIT NAGAR, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACT0426E. PAN : AAACT0426E. PAN : AAACT0426E. PAN : AAACT0426E. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -16(3), 16(3), 16(3), 16(3), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SENIOR DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XIX, NEW DELHI DATED 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 FOR THE AY 2006-07. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 1,24,250/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ACCOUNTI NG YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, TH E ASSESSEE PURCHASED A NEW BUS ON WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEPRECIAT ION FOR THE WHOLE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE FIT NESS CERTIFICATE BY THE RTO WAS ISSUED ON 7.10.2005. HE WAS, THEREFORE , OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO 50% OF THE NORMAL DEPRE CIATION. ITA-5853/DEL/2012 2 ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED 50% OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON THE SAID BUS WHICH WAS AMOUNTING TO ` 3,13,772/-. ON THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION, HE ALSO LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO ` 1,24,250/-. THE SAME WAS SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THERE WAS NO APP EARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER PERUSING THE MATERIAL PLA CED BEFORE US AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LEARNED DR , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARE LY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. (20 10) 322 ITR 158 (SC), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING TH E PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDIN G THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETU RN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 5. IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE ALSO, THERE IS NO AL LEGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE IS FURNISHING OF INCORRECT FACTS OR WRONG FACTS OR ANY CONCEALMENT OF FACTS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION AT 50% OF THE NORMAL DEPRE CIATION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT SO A S TO SADDLE HIM WITH THE LIABILITY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C). WE, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN ITA-5853/DEL/2012 3 THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA), C ANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 14.03.2014 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) L M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) L M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) L M/S TOP TRAVEL & TOURS (P) LTD., TD., TD., TD., L LL L- -- -3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, RANJIT NAGAR, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, RANJIT NAGAR, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, RANJIT NAGAR, 3, SAMRAT BHAWAN, RANJIT NAGAR, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. 2. RESPONDENT : INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD WARD WARD WARD- -- -16(3), NEW DELHI. 16(3), NEW DELHI. 16(3), NEW DELHI. 16(3), NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR