ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 63/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3518 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY GOYAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 271D; 271E

Judgement Text

PAGE | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 63/DEL/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 ) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 6, NEW DELHI VS. SAHARA INDIA FINANCIAL CORPORATION LTD, 1, KAPOORTHALA COMPLEX, ALIGANJ, LUCKNOW (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJAY GOYAL, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI SATYEN SETHI, ADV DATE OF HEARING 18/02/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 0 / 02 / 2019 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI , A. M. 1 . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) - 1, NEW DELHI DATED 31.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271E OF IT ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2079547176/ - IMPOSED BY THE ADDL. CIT. 3 . THE SOLITARY ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY U/S 271E OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 207954176/ - IMPOSED BY THE LD AO. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE SHOWS THAT APPELLANT IS AN RNBC REGISTERED WITH THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND IS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF MOBILIZATION OF DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN CASH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/ - AND THEREFORE, THE LD AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 142(2A ) OF THE ACT ON 16.08.2012 F OU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS AND 269T OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE LD A DD. CIT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271E OF THE ACT ON 24.08.2010 , AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PAGE | 2 PENALTY WAS IMPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2013 U/S 271E OF THE ACT OF RS. 207954716/ - . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2013 AND THEREFORE, THE LD AO IN APPEAL. 5 . THE LD DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD AO. 6 . THE LD AR STATED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 7 . WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE OR DER OF THE LD CIT(A) , IN 6.2 OF THE ORDER WHERE THE PENALTY IS DELETED FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE PENALTY ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ORDERS OF MY PREDECE SSOR IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE FOR AYS 1993 - 94, 1999 - 00, 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02, 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04, 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 WHEREIN PENALTY IMPOSED BY ADDITIONAL CIT HAS BEEN DELETED THE ON THE SAME ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27IE HOLDING THE APPELLANT TO HAVE REASONAB LE CAUSE AS CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 273B. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE THE SAME AS IN EARLIER YEARS AND I FIND NO REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY MY PREDECESSOR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SAHARA INDIA MUTUAL BENEFIT COMPANY LIMITED (AN ASSOCIATE CONCERN) FOR AYS 1993 - 94, 1999 - 00 & 2000 - 01. IN THE SAID ORDER THE HONBLE COURT, REFERRING TO ITS ORDER DATED 20.09.2012 IN THE APPELLANTS OWN CASE OF PENALTY U/S 271D UPHOLDING THE DECISIONS OF CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE, DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL HOLDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE AS THERE WAS N O INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND, THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF HONBLE HIGH COURT RULING IN THAT CASE WILL BE APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL ALSO. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORP. LTD. [AIR 1992 SC 711] AND KHALID AUTOMOBILES V. UNION OF INDIA [4 SCC (SUPPL.) 653] THAT THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL ARE BINDING ON THE INCOME - TAX AU THORITIES WITHOUT ANY RESERVATION. THE DECISIONS GIVEN EARLIER BY THE CIT(A) IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE AND HONBLE HIGH COURT IN A CONNECTED CASE ARE APPLICABLE ON FACTS AND IN LAW TO THE PRESENT CASE AND ARE BINDING. THE TWO PROVISIONS U/S 269SS AND 269T, A ND CONSEQUENTIAL PENALTIES U/S 271D AND 271E, ARE ALSO PARI MATERIA. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT APPELLANT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 273B AND WAS ENTITLED TO THE EXEMPTION FROM LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 27IE. ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL ARE ALLOWED AND THE PENALTY LEVIED IS CANCELLED. PAGE | 3 8 . AS THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONOURBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE DL CIT (A) , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER IN DELETING THE ABOVE PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0 / 02 / 2019 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( H.S.SIDHU ) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 0 / 02 / 2019 A K KEOT COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPLICANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT (A) 5 . DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI