PREMIUM POLYFILMS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE- 20(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 7081/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6703 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B L GUPTA ITP
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC, NEW DLEHI BEFORE : SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.7081/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 PREMIUM POLYFILMS PVT. LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-20( 1), F-404, ASHISH CORPORATE TOWER, NEW DELHI. COMMUNITY CENTRE, KARKARDUMA, NEW DELHI. PAN : AADCP 2156L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. B.L. GUPTA, I.T.P. RESPONDENT BY: MS. RINKU SINGH, SR. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 05.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2020 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2017 OF CIT(A) -7, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ASSAILED O N THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN : A) DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. B) HOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AS HAS BEEN RIG HTLY LEVIED BY THE AO. 2 C) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY BE NEFIT LIKE DELETION OF THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT OBSERVATION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALDS M EADOWS: S.L.P. NO.23272 OF 2016. D) HOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE EVE N IF THE PENALTY NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF S ECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY NOTICE WAS BEING ISSUED. E) HOLDING THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE EVEN IF THE NOTIC E U/S. 271(1)(C) AS IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS NOT VALID. 2. THE LD. AR, INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED O RDER, SUBMITTED THAT THE POINT IN ISSUE IS FULLY COVERED IN ASSESSE ES FAVOUR AND THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON ORDER DATED 11.09.2019 IN TH E CASE OF KRISHNA DEVI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 8016/DEL/2018 AND OTHERS (COPY FILED). 3. THE LD. SR. DR, ON CONSIDERATION OF A RECENT VIE W TAKEN BY DELHI BENCHES, DID NOT CONTEST THE ISSUE ON SEEING THE CO PY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 DATED 18.03.2016 BY ACIT, CIRCLE 20(1), NEW DELHI. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE BEING NO DISPUT E ON THE FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CO-O RDINATE BENCH, THE PENALTY ORDER IS DIRECTED TO BE QUASHED. THE RELEVA NT FINDING RELIED UPON 3 BY THE LD. AR AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE LD. SR. DR I S EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE : 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGES AS RELATES TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT CORRECTLY INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) ALSO O VERLOOKED THE ACTUAL INTENTION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SET OUT THAT WHEN THERE IS INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT ON P ART OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SAME SHOULD BE PROCEEDED. BUT IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTUAL ASPECTS BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CANNOT BE STATED THAT THERE WAS CONCE ALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ALL THE DETA ILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE NOTICE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FO R PENALTY. THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOWS. THE EXTRACT OF THE HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S. SSA EMERALD MEADOWS ARE AS UNDE R WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT: 3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E ., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISIO N BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 IT R 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDG MENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF 4 LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. BESIDES THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2013-1 4 THE SAME ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER: 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH W AS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR ) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LA W IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PAR TICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE SUBSEQ UENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241(KAR), THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS D ISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN SLP NO. 11485 OF 2016 BY ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2016. 22. ON THIS ISSUE AGAIN THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO FIN D ANY ERROR HAVING BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ITAT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF L AW ARISES. THUS, THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS SET ASIDE. ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AS ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 06/02/2020 AKS