DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 661/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61607 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURENDER PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BASANT KUMAR S
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law
• Section: 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.661/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DCIT, CIRCLE 10(1), NEW DELHI. VS. DCM SHRIRAM CONSOLIDATED LTD., 4, VIKRANT TOWER, 6 TH FLOOR, KANCHANJUNGA BUILDING, 18, B.K. ROAD, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACD0097R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI V.P. GUPTA & BASANT KUMAR, ADVOCATES REVENUE BY : SHRI SURENDER PAL, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER THE HONBLE ITAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IMPOSED BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER? 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED ABOVE AT THE TIME OF THE HEARI NG. 2. THE IMPUGNED CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF ` 21,09,023/ - WAS LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 1,87,97,003/- MADE IN TH E COMPUTATION OF ITA NO.661/DEL/2012 2 BOOK PROFIT U/S 115JB ON ACCOUNT OF PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS DELETED THIS PENALTY ON THE G ROUND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DELETED BY LEARNED CIT (A) A ND AFTER REPRODUCING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE HE HAS FOLLOWED THAT ORDER. 3. AT THE OUTSET, DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WA S POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 VIDE WHICH THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY LEVIED ON SIMI LAR GROUND WAS DELETED, HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORD ER DATED 14 TH JULY, 2011 IN ITA NO.2441/DEL/2011 AND HE HAS PLACED A COP Y OF THAT ORDER IN OUR RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 16 TH MARCH, 2012 IN ITA NO.162/2012, COPY OF WHICH IS AL SO PLACED ON RECORD. 4. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE N OT ONLY BY THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, BUT ALSO BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT ARE REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE:- CIT (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE DELETED THE SAID P ENALTY OBSERVING THAT THE POSITION BECAME CLEAR WHEN THE RETROSP ECTIVE AMENDMENT WAS MADE W.E.F. 1.4.2001 VIDE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2009. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN ON INCOME ON 29.11.2006, WHICH WAS REVISED ON 31.3.200 8. THESE ARE BEFORE THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IN 2009. THE AS SESSEE HAD RELIED ON CIT V. HCL COMNET SYSTEM AND SERVICES L TD. (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR PROVISION FOR BAD AND DOUBTF UL DEBTS UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 115JB. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FEEL THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN A CCEPTING ITA NO.661/DEL/2012 3 AND HOLDING THAT THE CASE IS COVERED BY EXPLANATION 1 C LAUSE (B) TO SECTION 271(1) AND HAD CORRECTLY DISMISSED THE APPEA L OF THE REVENUE DELETING THE PENALTY. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THIS VIEW OF THE SITUATION, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.04.20 12. SD/- SD/- [G.D. AGRAWAL] [I.P. BANSAL] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 13.04.2012. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES