Pooja Paper Craft, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 680/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9717 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 13-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M J PAUL SR DR

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 680/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 M/S. POOJA PAPER CRAFT, 15, SWASTIK AVENUE, SWASTIK SOCIETY, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD PAN : AADFP 5875 B VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD / // / (APPELLANT) / // / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE(S) BY : MS URVASHI SHODHAN, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI M.J. PAUL, SR.DR !' # $%&/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 13/07/2015 '( # $%& / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 )* )* )* )*/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 13.01.2011, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASS ESSEE IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.1,37,024/- U/S 271(1)(C). 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERI VES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF PAPER TUBES. FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS.2 ,25,801/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SAME WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ITA NO. 680/AHD/2011 M/S. POOJA PAPER CRAFT VS. DCIT AY 2003-04 2 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVELING EXPENSES ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING FO REIGN TOUR EXPENSES. THE PENALTY IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A); HENCE, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERAT ION IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE A PEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD, REPORTED I N [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FA LSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A ME RE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS. 5. IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MENTIONED THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ACCURATE PARTICULARS REG ARDING FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED EXPENSES NOT RELAT ED TO BUSINESS. FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE PROFIT AND INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY DECREASING TAX LIABILITY. IN THE OPINION OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE CLAIMED THE EXPENSES AND CLAIMING O F SUCH EXPENSES ITSELF AMOUNTS TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OUR OPINION, THE ABOVE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE CLEARLY STATED THAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIB LE IN LAW, WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FALSE, INACCURATE OR WRONG. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT IT VISITED A FOREIGN COUNTRY TO ITA NO. 680/AHD/2011 M/S. POOJA PAPER CRAFT VS. DCIT AY 2003-04 3 ATTEND A TRADE FAIR FOR PACKING MACHINERIES. WHETH ER SUCH FOREIGN VISIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR NOT MAY BE A QUESTION OF FACT BUT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE FACTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE OR INCORRECT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLL OWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT, CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 2 71(1)(C). 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/07/2015 BIJU T., PS )* # $+ ,)+$ )* # $+ ,)+$ )* # $+ ,)+$ )* # $+ ,)+$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. $ !- / CONCERNED CIT 4. !- ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. +01 $ , , / D R, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 13 4' / GUARD FILE . )*! )*! )*! )*! / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 5 55 5/ // / 6 6 6 6 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD