Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Limited, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle - 14, Pune

ITA 708/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4655 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Additional evidence
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 274

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH, ‘B’ PUNE BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos.707 & 708/PUN/2018 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune- 411003. PAN: AAACK7297E Vs. DCIT, Circle-14, Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM : Both these appeals are against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune’s two separate orders commonly dated 08.01.2018 for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012- 13 respectively. 2. Since identical facts and issues are involved in both the appeals, therefore, we proceed to dispose of the same by this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.707/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12 are stated herein. ITA No.707/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2011-12 : 4. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without hearing the assessee on merits. 1.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars especially when the assessee has accurately furnished all material facts at the time of assessment. The learned CIT(A) Assessee by Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue by Shri Anurag Shivastava Date of hearing 11-04-2022 Date of pronouncement 12-04-2022 ITA Nos.707 & 708/PUN/2018 2 also failed to appreciate that all the issues involved are purely legal in nature and are debatable ones. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Gray Iron Casting & Pig Iron. The return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 was filed on 28.09.2011 disclosing total income of Rs.52,47,29,279/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.73,26,54,700/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer disallowed the depreciation and additional depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by issuing show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by alleging that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Assessing Officer levied the penalty vide order dated 31.05.2017 after giving opportunity to the assessee. 7. Being aggrieved by the above decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 9. Before us, the ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the ITAT, Pune Bench in assessee’s own case vide ITA No.1166/PUN/2017 for the A.Y. 2011-12, ITA ITA Nos.707 & 708/PUN/2018 3 No.1167/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13 order dated 07.04.2022 (copy of the said order is placed on record) admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee on the ground that the additional evidence is purely engineering and technical matter and it is relevant material to decide the issue in appeal and directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue in the light of the additional evidence produced by the assessee. The ld. AR further submitted that this Tribunal in quantum appeal vide order dated 07.04.2022 (supra) remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, ld. AR submitted that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is not maintainable. 10. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR submitted that the penalty order may be set-aside to the file of the Assessing Officer to re-compute the penalty in terms of order passed by this Tribunal in quantum appeal vide order dated 07.04.2022 (supra). 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The only issue in the present appeal relates to the validity of the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. From the evidence on record, it is clear that since in the quantum appeal, the Hon’ble ITAT remitted the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh in the light of the additional evidence filed by the assessee, the surviving of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act does not arise. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. 12. In the result, the appeal in ITA No.707/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2011-12 stands allowed. ITA No.708/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 : 13. The grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2012-13 are as under :- “1. Penalty Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 1.1 The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) without hearing the assessee on merits. 1.2 Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for alleged furnishing of inaccurate ITA Nos.707 & 708/PUN/2018 4 particulars especially when the assessee has accurately furnished all material facts at the time of assessment. The learned CIT(A) also failed to appreciate that all the issues involved are purely legal in nature and are debatable ones. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 14. The Assessing Officer passed penalty order on 31.05.2017. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the said penalty order vide order dated 08.01.2018. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.707/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining appeal of assessee in ITA No.708/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.708/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 stands allowed. 15. Resultantly, both the above appeals of the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12 th April, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 12 th April, 2022 Sujeet आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant; 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent; 3. 4. 5. 6. The CIT(A)-7, Pune; The Pr. CIT-6, Pune; DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune; गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune