DCIT 6, Kanpur V. M/s Propene Products Ltd, Kanpur

ITA 638/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 63823714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 80HHC

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.638/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 - 02 DY.C.I.T. - 6, KANPUR. VS. M/S PROPANE PRODUCTS LTD., E - 10, PANKI INDUSTRIAL AREA, KANPUR. PAN:AAACP8241R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY KUMAR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 2 9 /05/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 3 /06/2014 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT (A) - I, KANPUR DATED 26/07/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 2002. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAIS) - II, KANPUR, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELING THE PENALTY OF RS.18,00,000/ - WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY ACCEPTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN FILLING OF RETURN BY IGNORING THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF A.M. SHAH & COMPANY VS, CIT (1998) 238 ITR 415 AND APEX COURT THE CASE OF CIT. VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 IN 2 WHICH THE FILLING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS' HAS BEEN DEFINED. 3. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - II, KANPUR, HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY NOT ACCE PTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER - VIA WHICH IS AVAILABLE ONLY FROM GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS DEFINED IN SECTION 80B(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) - I KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS DESERVES TO BE VACATED AND THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE AND/OR ADD ANY FRESH GROUND AS AND WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREAS LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. EURO FOOTWEAR LTD. IN I.T.A. NO.558 & 562/LKW/2011 DATED 04/07/2012. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS DECISION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION CITED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF DECREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION ALLOWABLE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA FOR TH E REASON THAT THE LOSS OF OTHER UNIT WAS NOT SET OFF BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF EURO FOOTWEAR LTD. (SUPRA), THE 3 ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT AS TO WHETHER DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB AND 80HHC IS ALLOWABLE OR NOT IN RESPECT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPORT INCENTIVES. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DEBATABLE, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, BEFORE THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF IPCA LABORATORIES, T HIS ISSUE W AS DEBATABLE AS TO WHETHER THE LOSS OF OTHER UNIT IS COMPULSORILY REQUIRED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE INCOME BEFORE CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER - VIA OF THE ACT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO IN FIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 3 /06/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR