DCIT, Parwanoo V. Sh. Jagmohan Gurbakshish Singh, Solan

ITA 83/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6742 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 83/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 THE DCIT, CIRCLE, VS. SH. JAGMOHAN GURBAKSHISH SI NGH, PARWANOO PROP. M/S BUDGE SIGNS, DISTT.SOLAN PAN NO. AKNPS4042H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PAWAN KUMAR SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SH. PRIKSHIT AGGARWAL DATE OF HEARING : 23.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.10.2017 ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENU E AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], SHIMLA DATED 14.10.2016. 2. THE REVENUE HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A ) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ASSE SSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAVING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ILLUMINATED SIGNAGE LIKE LED PANEL S, FLAT PANEL DISPLAY ETC. FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.09.2012 DECLA RING INCOME OF RS. 2 72,35,690/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS. 99,85,7 03/- AT 100% OF PROFIT U/S 80IC OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF SUBSTANTIAL EX PANSION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) AT AN INCOME OF RS. 1,53,75,148/- AFTER ALLOWING 25% DEDUCTION INSTEAD OF 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY AVAILED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 80IC IN THE INITIAL YEAR OF START OF MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY. IN RELATI ON TO THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE MAT TER TRAVELLED UPTO THE LEVEL OF THE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONIC, BADDI V S. ITO (ITA NO. 798/CHD/2012) DATED 27.5.2015 UPHELD THE QUANTUM AD DITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT IT WAS DELIBERATE ATTEM PT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT @ 100% OF TAX SOUG HT TO BE EVADED I.E. AT RS. 21,56,830./- 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE LEVY OF PENALTY, TH E ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED T HE PENALTY SO LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVING THAT ON THE IDENTIC AL FACTS, THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 8.10.2015 IN THE CASE OF HYCRON EL ECTRONICS LTD IN ITA NO. 326/CHD/2015 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. HE, THERE FORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND TH AT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS FOLLOWED TH E DECISION OF THE 3 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HYCRON ELECTRONICS LTD. ( SUPRA) WHEREIN ALSO THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, DELETED THE PENALTY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BECAUSE IT IS WELL SETTLED THA T LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC IN EACH AND EVERY CASE AS IT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E. SINCE, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC H AVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EARLIER YEAR @ 100% AND ADMITTEDLY ASSESSEE UNDERTOOK SUBSTANTIAL EXPANSION IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE MADE BONAFID E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IC OF THE ACT AND THERE W ERE NO JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF MAKING SUCH A CLAIM. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUED THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY. 7. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHILE DELETING PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS HERE BY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.10.2017 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24.10.2017 RKK 4 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR