DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Punjab National Bank, New Delhi

ITA 6596/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4228 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KARAN KHANNA
• Section: 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6596/DEL/2016 : ASSTT. YE AR : 2010-11 DCIT CIRCLE-20(1), ROOM NO. 219, 2 ND FLOOR C.R.BUILDING, I.P.ESTATE NEW DELHI VS PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK HO: FINANCE DIVISION, 5, SANSAD MARG NEW DELHI PAN : AAACP0165G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. KARAN KHANNA, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. ATIQ AHMED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 /08/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 /08/2018 ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICAL MEMBER PRESENT PENALTY APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AG AINST ORDER DATED 28/10/16 PASSED BY LD. CIT (A)-7 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 5,53,00,980/- U/S 271(1)(C). SINCE THE ADDITION MAD E U/S 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D(III) OF RS. 16,26,97,795/ - WAS ALSO SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.6596/DEL/2016 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/10 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.54,72,99,13,873/-WHICH WAS REVISED ON 2 8/03/12 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.51,56,93,06,854/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISS UED TO ASSESSEE. LD.AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) PASSED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER BY COMPUTING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH RU LE 8D AT RS.1,71,24,78,792/-. HE WORKED OUT THE DISALLOWANCE AS PER RULE 8D(I) AT NIL, 8D(II) AT RS.154,97,80,997/-AND 8D(II I) AT RS.16,26,97,795/-. 3. AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO, ASSESSEE P REFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 18/02/1 4 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.16,26,97,795/- UNDER 8D(III). 4. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LD.AO PASSED PENALTY ORDER BY LIVING HUNDRED PERCENT PENA LTY ON TAX ON THE SAID DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRE D APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED ALL REQUISITE DETAILS AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY MATERIA L FACTS. HE OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF ASSESSEE TO CO NCEAL INCOME OR EVADE TAX. LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE EXP LANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE BEING SATISFACTORY AND THAT T HE BONA FIDES COULD NOT BE DOUBTED. ITA NO.6596/DEL/2016 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) 3 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) REVENUE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US NOW. 7. AT THE OUTSET, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL AGA INST THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM IS P ENDING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER CONSIDERING THE DEBATABLE IN NATURE OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T PENALTY APPEAL COULD BE SEPARATELY HEARD. 8. LD.SR.DR IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.AO. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ERROR ON BEHALF OF AS SESSEE RE- FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF ANY MATERIAL FACTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND EXPLANATION REGARDING THE CLAIM DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT DISALL OWANCE UNDER SECTION 14 A HAS ALWAYS BEEN DEBATABLE AND CONTENTIO US. HE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LIQUID INVESTMENTS IN ITA NO. 240/2009 DATED 05/10/10, WHEREIN HONBLE COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 14 A OF THE ACT WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. 10. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY BOTH T HE SIDES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. 11. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER LD.AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH REGARDING ANY CONCEALMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS OR FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY ASSESSEE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY CONSIDERING THE FIGURES, THAT WERE DULY DISCLOSED ITA NO.6596/DEL/2016 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) 4 IN THE RETURN AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE . UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE O RDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED. ACCORD INGLY WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE. 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (BEENA A. PILLAI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 14/08/2018 *BINITA* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NO.6596/DEL/2016 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK) 5