The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Samrat Corporation, Ahmedabad

ITA 958/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8581 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA. NO: 958/AHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD V/S M/S. SAMRAT CORPORATION STHAPATYA APARTMENT, NR. APOLLO HOSPITAL, GURUKUL, MEMNAGAR, AHMEDABAD- 380052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AALFS1024P APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R . RESPONDENT BY : NONE ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 31 -08-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 -09-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 3, AHMEDABAD DATED 03.02.2016 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 20 03-04. ITA NO. 958/ AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2003-04 2 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 16,78,745/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE ROOTS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY LIE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 05.12.2011 FRAMED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT . 4. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY DENYING THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE S EPARATELY INITIATED AND FINALLY CULMINATED INTO LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS. 16,7 8,745/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. 5. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE PENALTY ORDER BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT BUT ON APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, T HE TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. AND I T IS ONLY IN THE SECOND ROUND OF LITIGATION, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS DEN IED. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE D ETAILS FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION AND IT IS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS AND, THEREFORE, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE PARTICULARS REG ARDING THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBS ERVED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR, THE SAME CANNOT LEAD TO ITA NO. 958/ AHD/2016 . A.Y. 2003-04 3 THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DRAW ING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLO WED THE APPEAL AND DELETED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIND INGS OF THE A.O. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF NOTI CE, THEREFORE, WE DECIDED TO EX PARTE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS TRUE THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IB(10) OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL TH E PARTICULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ITSELF. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. SQUARELY APPLY ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06 - 09- 20 17 SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOU NTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/09/2017