DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Morgan Securities & Credit (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6158/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3613 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6158/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE-17(1), NEW DELHI. VS. MORGAN SECURITIES & CREDIT (P) LTD., A-38, 1 ST FLOOR, MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDL. ESTATE, MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCM7937R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 15.09.2015 DELETING THE PEN ALTY OF RS.23,61,909/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ITA NO.6158/DEL/2015 2 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED THE ACT) IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE NE CESSARY RECORDS. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSE E DESPITE NOTICE. AS SUCH, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY IN THIS CASE WAS IMPOSED WITH REF ERENCE TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D. 3. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE, I T IS SEEN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN TERMS OF RULE 8D. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. VS. DCIT, 318 ITR 81 (BO M), HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 8D ARE APPLICABLE ONLY FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ONWARDS. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION IS 2007-08. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE VERY BASIS FOR MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A BY APPLYING RULE 8D, IS ITSELF UNDER THE SHADOW OF DOUBT. BY NO STANDARD, SUCH A DISALLOWAN CE CAN BE CONSTRUED ITA NO.6158/DEL/2015 3 AS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO WARRANT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS HELD THAT SIMPLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW UP TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, CANNO T BE A CASE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), MORE SO, WHEN THE PARTICULARS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT INACCURATE. RATIO DECIDENDI OF THE JUDGMENT IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE AS WELL. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOI NG DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETING THE PENALTY IMPO SED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- [BEENA PILLAI] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED, 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2017. DK ITA NO.6158/DEL/2015 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.