Income Tax Officer-5(3), Kanpur V. M/s Super Pipes Pvt.Ltd., Kanpur

ITA 94/LKW/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 9423714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAFALI SWAROOP
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.94/LKW/2012 A.Y.:2001 - 02 & I.T.A. NO.122/LKW/2012 A.Y.:2001 - 2002 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 5(3), KANPUR. VS. M/S SUPER PIPES PVT. LTD., 18/56 - A, KAILASH APARTMENT, THEMALL, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. SAFALI SWAROOP, D.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING 22/11/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A) - I, KANPUR DATED 21/11/2011 AND 26/12/2011 FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. FINANCIAL Y EAR 2001 - 2002 ARISING OUT OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D AND 271E RESPECTIVELY. BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D OF THE ACT I.E. I.T.A. NO.94/LKW/2012. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,00,000/ - LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE SIMPLY ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE CAUSE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,00,000/ - LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271D OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FAILURE WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE AND OR ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED TO DO SO. 3. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE , THERE IS NO ACTUAL FLOW OF CASH BUT THE TRANS ACTION IS SIMPLY BY WAY OF BOOK ENTRIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. LALA MURARI LAL & SONS 2 SOT 543 (2004) (LUCK). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO F OLLOWED HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT 3 VS. NATWAR LAL PUROSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH 303 ITR 5 , WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ENTERED INTO THROUGH A THIRD PARTY, THERE WOULD BE NO VIOLATION OF SECTION269SS. C ONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OR THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW WE TAKE UP SECOND APPEAL IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271E OF THE ACT I.E. I.T.A. NO.122/LKW/2012. IN THIS APPEAL , THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.4,18,209/ - LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271E OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE FACTS OF THE CASE SIMPLY ON THE GROUND OF REASONABLE CAUSE. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.4,18,209/ - LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271E OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATION THE MERIT OF THE CASE AND ALSO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE FAILURE WAS DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. 3. THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS, UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RE STORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE AND OR ADD ANY FRESH GROUNDS AS AND WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED TO DO SO. 6. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER WHEREAS THE LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . I N THIS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE BA SIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSACTIONS WITH SHRI J.K. AGARWAL WERE BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE BELIEF AND THEREFORE, IT CON STITUTES REASONABLE CAUSE IN TERMS OF SECTION 273B OF THE ACT. THIS FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LEARNED D.R. AND HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 9 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 3 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T. ASSTT. REGISTRAR