ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Style India Exports, New Delhi

ITA 824/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 82420114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUKA JAIN GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR ITA NO. 824/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YR: 2002-03 ACIT, CIRCLE 23(1), VS. M/S STYLE INDIA EXPORTS, NEW DELHI. 9, COMMUNITY CENTRE, EAST OF KAILASH, NEW DELHI-19. PAN: AABFS 2027 C ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SMT. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-XIII, NEW DELHI DATED 26-11-2012 RELATING TO A.Y. 2002-03 SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCT ION U/S 80HHC, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY NOT FI LING THE SECOND APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE. WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF T HE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AND IN THAT PROCESS WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR A ND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE: IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSE E CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC BY CONSIDERING THE FIGURE OF INCOME WHICH IN CLUDED INTEREST ON FDRS, WHICH WAS NETTED AGAINST THE OTHER INTEREST I NCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON FDR W AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHICH WAS NOT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE COMPUTA TION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 HHC. THE INCOME WAS ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED. AS PROPOS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INI TIATED. 3.1. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEES STAND WA S THAT THE FDRS IN QUESTION WERE MADE OUT OF EXPORT SALES OF THE ASSES SEE AND THE MAKING OF FDR WAS NECESSITATED BY BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY INASMUC H AS THEY WERE TO BE PLEDGED WITH AEPC FOR ALLOTMENT OF EXPORT QUOTA OF READYMADE GARMENTS AND ALSO WERE TO BE PLACED AS A SECURITY WITH THE B ANS FOR SANCTION OF CREDIT LIMITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES EXPORT BUSINES S. THE INTEREST INCOME WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHTLY ARRIVED AT BY NETTING OF TH E INTEREST ON FDRS WITH THE INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON ITAT DELHI SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF LALSONS ENTERPRISES ( SB) 89 ITD 25 (DEL. SPL. BENCH.). IN ADDITION, ASSESSEE RELIED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: - PINK STAR VS. DCIT (MUM.) 72 ITD 152; - HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS VS. DCIT 69 TTJ 99 (DEL.) ; - CIT VS. INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL CO. 288 ITR 570; - CIT VS. RITA MALHOTRA 154 ITR 550 (DEL.); - BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION CO. OF IN DIA VS. ITO 113 ITD 592 (CAL.) - CIT VS. LATE G.D. NAIDU & CO. 165 ITR 63 (MAD.). - SKY LINE AUTO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 142 TAXMAN 558 (MP ); - HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD. VS. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26 (SC); 3 - SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 119 TAXMAN 433 (SC); - CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD. 288 ITR 585. 3.2. ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IMPOSED THE PENALT Y 3.3. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT ALL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80-HHC WERE DULY DISCL OSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS A QUESTION OF ALLOW ANCE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE DEDUCTION. ASSESSEE WORKED IT OUT AT X FIGURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED IT ON Y FIGURE. VARIATION OF CLAIM OF DEDU CTION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS MORE SO WHEN R ELEVANT PARTICULARS WERE FIELD ALONG WITH THE RETURN. CIT(A) RELYING ON VARI OUS JUDGMENTS DELETED THE PENALTY. 3.4. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW IT HAS NOT BEEN D ISPUTED THAT RELEVANT FIGURES WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS BEING SO, THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE REL EVANT DETAILS ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE VARIATION IN THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT IMPOSABLE IN SUCH CASES. IN OU R CONSIDERED VIEW ASSESSEES FACTS ARE SIMILAR TO HONBLE SUPREME COU RT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (SUPRA). RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4 5. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24-01-2014. SD/- SD/- ( T.S. KAPOOR ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24-01-2014. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR