Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat v. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1,, Surat

ITA 2406/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 240620514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAACD8469M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2406/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
Appellant Alidhara Textool Engineers Pvt.Ltd.,, Surat
Respondent The Dy.CIT, Circle-1,, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 07-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 17-08-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT AND BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.2406/AHD/2009 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2004-2005] ALIDHARA TEXTOOL ENGINEERS P. LTD. PLOT NO.168 ROAD NO.3 UDYOGNAGAR UDHNA PAN : AAACD 8469 M VS. DCIT CIR.1 SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI HARDIK VORA REVENUE BY : SHRI S.K. MEENA O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS)-I SURAT DATED 14.07.2009 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.5 97 985/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE AO LEVIED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE FOLL OWING ADDITIONS: I) UNDERVALUATION OF SEMI-FINISHED GOODS & STOCK IN TRANSIT OF RS.10.00 LAKHS; II) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB ON OTHER INC OME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 71 333/-; III) DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTION U/S .80IB OF RS.4 95 293/- THE SAME IS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) HENCE THIS APP EAL BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2406/AHD/2009 -2- 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNS EL THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.10.00 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF UNDER VALUATION OF SEM I-FINISHED GOODS AND STOCK-IN-TRANSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.10 LAKHS HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.3592/AHD/2007. ONCE THE ADDITION ITSEL F HAS BEEN DELETED THE PENALTY BASED UPON SUCH ADDITION CANNOT SURVIVE . 5. COMING TO DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80IB IN RES PECT OF THE INTEREST INCOME AS WELL AS DEPRECIATION WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIA NCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIP HELD AS UNDER: A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT THERE H AS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRA CE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS F OUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PEN ALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION THE PENALTY PROV ISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT C LAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. (EMPHASIS ADDED) THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FU RNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACC URATE THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO TH E TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. S UCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. ITA NO.2406/AHD/2009 -3- FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THEIR LORDSHIPS H AVE CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT MERELY AN INCORRECT CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE IT WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS SO AS TO MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C . IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ALL THE FACTS HAVE BEEN DI SCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ONLY DIS PUTE IS WITH REGARD TO COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB. THE A O HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S.80IB HOWEVER WHILE COMPUTING THE DED UCTION HE EXCLUDED CERTAIN INCOME. THUS IT IS A CASE WHERE WHILE CLA IMING THE DEDUCTION THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN ANOTHER VIEW. THIS WILL NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FU RNISHING OF THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TH E ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT CON CEALMENT OF ANY INCOME OR FURNISHING OF ANY INCORRECT FACT. THEREFO RE IN SUCH SITUATION NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA) CANCEL THE P ENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY 2011 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 22-07-2011