The ITO, Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad V. The Madhu Industries Ltd, Ahmedabad

ITA 991/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 99120514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL SRDR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Wrong claim

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND .., ! '# '# '# '# SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%.. , &' ( & ! ) & ! ) & ! ) & ! ) ITA NO. 991/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR :1999-2000 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), 1 ST FLOOR, NAVJIVAN TRUST BUILDING, AHMEDABAD V/S . MADHU INDUSTRIES LTD. 39, PHASE-1, GIDC ESTATE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. A A ABM0027D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) *+ , - & / BY APPELLANT SHRI P. L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. ./*+ , - & /BY RESPONDENT SHRI SULABH PADSHAH, A.R. 0 , 1%' /DATE OF HEARING 24.02.2014 234 , 1 %' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.03.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD, ORDER DATED DECEMBER 17.01.2011 FOR A.Y. 1999-2000. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.7,29,334/- LEVIED BY THE A.O. U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE LD. A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF RS.18,94,19 2/- U/S. 80IA OF THE IT ACT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME DE DUCTION WAS DISALLOWED IN A.Y. 03-04 AND PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)(C) IN ITIATED FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE A.O. AG AIN GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), WHICH WAS ITA NO. 991/AHD/2011 ITO VS. MADHU INDUSTRIES A.Y. 1999-2000 PAGE 2 AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING ASSESS EES REPLY, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE COMPANY WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY LEVIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE IT ACT ON THE INCOME OF RS.18,94,192/-. THUS, HE IMPOSED 100% PE NALTY AT RS.7,29,264/- OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD DELETED THE PENALT Y BY OBSERVING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA BY THE A.O. ON MADE UP, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TREATED AS MANUFACTURING ACTIVITY UNDE R THIS SECTION. THUS, ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 80IA WAS ALSO DISALLOWED IN A.Y . 03-04 ON SIMILAR FACTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE HAS NOT HELD THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE AND FABRICATED. THUS, HE ALLOWED THE PENALTY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING VARI OUS DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. LD. SR. D.R. VEHE MENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 03-04 IN ITA NO. 1733/A HD/2009 AND IN A.Y. 04- 05 IN ITA NO. 1342/AHD/2010, THE HONBLE B BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HELD THAT CLAIM U/S. 80IA WAS FOUND N OT ADMISSIBLE AS PER LAW. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT THERE WAS CHANGE IN THE PROVIS IONS OF IT ACT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT HE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR THE SAID CLAIM AS HE WAS GRANTED DEDUCTION IN PAST, FOR WHIC H HE PLACED THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THEN BENCH. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT DISALL OWANCES HAD ALWAYS BEEN A ITA NO. 991/AHD/2011 ITO VS. MADHU INDUSTRIES A.Y. 1999-2000 PAGE 3 MATTER OF DISPUTE. THERE WAS NO CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BOGUS CLAIM, FOR WHICH, ASSESSEE HAS OFFERE D AN EXPLANATION, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND UNTRUE. THE HONBLE BENCH ALSO BY FO LLOWING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA IS ALW AYS FOUND DISPUTED. BUT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE A. O., WHICH WAS NOT FOUND FALSE. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CO-O RDINATE B BENCH DECISION IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07.03.2014 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (T.R. MEENA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA &5 &5 &5 &5 , ,, , .16 .16 .16 .16 7&641 7&641 7&641 7&641 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. *+ / APPELLANT 2. ./*+ / RESPONDENT 3. ## 1 ; / CONCERNED CIT 4. ;- / CIT (A) 5. 6? .1 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. A BC / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ &5 &, / # , )