ACIT, Alwar v. JALAN HARD COKE P LTD., Alwar

ITA 285/JPR/2011 | 1995-1996
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 28523114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AABCJ4006D
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 285/JPR/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Alwar
Respondent JALAN HARD COKE P LTD., Alwar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 17-10-2011
Next Hearing Date 17-10-2011
Assessment Year 1995-1996
Appeal Filed On 31-03-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO. 285/JP/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1995-96) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 ALWAR APPELLANT VS. M/S. JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD. 4/3 KALA KUAN HOUSING BOARD ALWAR -301001(RAJ.) RESPONDENT & ITA.NO.328/JP/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1995-96) M/S. JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD. 4/3 KALA KUAN HOUSING BOARD ALWAR -301001(RAJ.) APPELLANT VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2 ALWAR RESPONDENT PAN: AABCJ4006D / BY REVENUE :SHRI RAJESH OJHA D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI KRANTI MEHTA A.R. /DATE OF HEARING :27.11.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :28.11.2014 I.T.A. NOS. 285 & 328/JP/2011 A.Y. 1995-96 (ACIT VS. M/S JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD.) PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV J.M: THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT FORM THE PENALT Y ORDER U/S. 271(1)(C) OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ALWAR DATED 03.01.2011 FOR A.Y. 1995-96. SO THEY ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NO. 285/JP/2011 REVENUE FILED APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A.) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN RESTRICTING THE PENALTY AS IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) FROM RS.7 57 450/- TO RS.2 52 485/-. 2.1 IN ITA NO. 328/JP/2011 ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPE AL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALOWAR ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF RS.252485/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT EVEN WHEN THERE WAS NO CASE OF MENSREA OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY SUSTAIN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ALWAR DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY CL AIMED EXPENSES OF RS.3 51 897/- AND DEPRECIATION OF RS.1 96 979/- ON BUILDING PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR AT BOMBAY ON 27.03.1996. ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD DISCLOSED REGISTE RED OFFICE AT 332 RAM LALA JI KA RASTA JOHARI BAZAR JAIPUR WHICH WAS ACTUALLY ADDRESS OF MEHTA AND COMPANY LD. CIT(A). LATER ON I.T.A. NOS. 285 & 328/JP/2011 A.Y. 1995-96 (ACIT VS. M/S JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD.) PAGE 3 ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD SHIFTED OFFICE FROM JAIPUR TO ALWAR. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SOLD RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND CAR PA RKING SPACE IN BUILDING KNOWN AS MITTAL PART AT SERIAL NO. 44 PART NO. 1 & 2 JUHU BOMBAY. THE AGREEMENT DATED 2 ND SEPTEMBER 1994 WITH M/S JUHU CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INDICATED THAT A SSESSEE INVESTED RS.50 000/- IN RESIDENTIAL UNIT. ACCORDIN G TO AGREEMENT ON PARA 12 ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS STRICTLY PROHIBITED FROM USE OF ANY OTHER PURPOSE EXCEPT PRI VATE RESIDENCE AND CAR PARKING SPACE. ALL CONDITIONS IN PURCHASE DEED OF FLAT WERE NORMAL AS REQUIRED FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSES. ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMISSION FROM BMC FOR COMMERCIAL USE OF ALLEGED BUILDING ON WHICH DEPRECI ATION CLAIMED. ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE HAD NOT ALLOW ED DEPRECIATION ON THIS BUILDING AND PREOPERATIONAL EX PENSES AS EXPENDITURE. ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS WITH CONCISE MIND FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION FROM INCOME FORM OTHER SOURCE TO AVOID TAX ON ITS POSITI VE INCOME. BESIDES THIS ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED PREOPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.3 51 897/- OUT OF INCOME OF OTHER SOURCES TO REDUCE ITS POSITIVE INCOME IN TO LOSS OF RS.46 482/-. ASSESSI NG OFFICER DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES BY RELYING ON M/S TUTICOR IN ALKALI CHEMICALS & FERTILIZERS LIMITED VS. CIT (1997) 227 ITR 172 (SC). IN APPEAL CIT(A) AS WELL AS ITAT HAVE CONFIR MED ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE USED COLOURFUL DEVICE TO EVADE TAX ON ITS REAL INCOME DELIBERATELY FOR WHICH ALSO FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ASSESSING OFFICE R IMPOSED PENALTY ON CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.5 48 882/- AT RS. 7 57 450/- I.T.A. NOS. 285 & 328/JP/2011 A.Y. 1995-96 (ACIT VS. M/S JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD.) PAGE 4 WHICH IS MAXIMUM PENALTY IMPOSED @ 300% OF TAX SOUG HT TO BE EVADED. 4. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISE ON MERIT AND FACTS AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CONCERNED CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY CLAIMED PREOPERATIONAL EXPEN DITURE AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND DEPRECIATION O N BUILDING WHICH WAS NOT MEANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. IN THIS CASE EXPLANATION FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT FOUND RELEVANT AT ALL. ASSESSEE HAS OTHER OBJECTS OF FIN ANCE IN MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION BUT IT WAS NOT MAIN OBJEC T. FURTHER RECEIPT OF INTEREST ON CERTAIN LOAN DOES N OT TANTAMOUNT TO BE BUSINESS. THE BUSINESS HAS DIFFER ENT DEFINITION. ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PERMISSION OF BANKING BUSINESS FROM RBI. THERE WERE EXCESS FUNDS AVAILAB LE WITH ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ADVANCED TO PRIVATE PARTTIES FO R SHORT TIME. EXPENSES CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WERE ALSO PRE-OP ERATION FOR STARTING OF MANUFACUTRING ACTIVITY AS MAIN OBJECT O F COMPANY. IN THIS CASE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTABLISHED THE MEN SREA OF ASSESSEE TO EVADE THE TAX. ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RETURN OF INCOME BY CLAIMING PREOPER ATIONAL EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION. ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS FOUND FALSE. THERE WAS NO ADDITION ON BASIS OF ESTIMATIO N AS WELL. HOWEVER ACCORDING TO CIT(A) PENALTY IMPOSED BY AS SESSING OFFICER WAS FOUND ON HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE HE RE STRICTED PENALTY @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEA LED I.T.A. NOS. 285 & 328/JP/2011 A.Y. 1995-96 (ACIT VS. M/S JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD.) PAGE 5 INCOME. THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF SHIV LAL TAK VS. CIT 251 ITR 373 (RAJ.) RELIED BY ASSESSEE DOES NOT HELP ASSESSEE BECAUSE EXPLANATION OF ASSES SEE WAS FOUND FALSE IN CASE BEFORE US. ASSESSEE HAS DELIBE RATELY MADE FALSE CLAIM TO EVADE TAX WHICH IS NOT THE SPIRIT O F THE RATIO OF SHIV LAL TAK (SUPRA). IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CIT(A) WHEREBY HE HAS RESTRICTED THE PENALTY 100% UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) NEEDS NO INTERFERE NCE FROM OUR SIDE WE UPHELD THE SAME. 5. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AND ASSESSE E BOTH ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (B. C. MEENA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- ACIT 2. THE RESPONDENT- M/S JALAN HARD COKE (P.) LTD. 3. THE CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NOS. 285 & 328/JP/2011) BY ORDER A.R. JAIPUR.