CIPLA LIMITED, v. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,

MA 21/MUM/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2119924 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAACC1450B
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number MA 21/MUM/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s)
Appellant CIPLA LIMITED,
Respondent DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2,
Appeal Type Miscellaneous Application
Pronouncement Date 11-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 11-03-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 10-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL A.M. AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO J.M. M.A. NOS. 21 22 & 23/MUM/2011 (IN ITA NOS. 1272 1273 & 1274/M/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 2002-03 & 2003-04 CIPLA LTD. APPLICANT MUMBAI CENTRAL MUMBAI 400 008 (PAN AAACC1450B) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2 CGO BUILDING M.K. MARG MUMBAI 400 020 APPLICANT BY : MR. D.P. BAPAT RESPONDENT BY : MR. HARI GOVIND SINGH . ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO J.M.: THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSE SEE ARISE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NOS. 1272 1273 AND 1274/M/2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 26 TH NOVEMBER 2010. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSEE S TATED THAT MISTAKES APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF T HE ITAT PASSED IN THE SAID APPEALS AS THE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE APP EALS HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE DETAILS FILED IN THE PAPER B OOK VIDE PAGES 23 58 TO 62 IN PARTICULAR PAGE 59 AND PAGES 64 TO 70 AND 82 TO 95. IT WAS STATED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED THE REFORE THE QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS DOES NOT ARISE IN THE CASE OF THE M.A. NOS.. 21 TO 23/MUM/11 M/S CIPLA LTD. 2 ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT TO IMPOSE PENALTY T HE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENCE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS TO AGENT OF GOVERNMENT WHICH IS NOT AN OFFENCE AND T HEREFORE IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NOT AT ALL WARRA NTED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERA TED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS. IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 1. NARESH K. PAHUJA BOM WP NO. 2515 OF 2008 2. CIT VS. MOOLCHAND SHYAMLAL 273 ITR 160 (ALL.) 3. LACHMAN DASS BHATIA HINGWALLA VS. ACIT 330 ITR 243 (DEL.) 4. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THA T ALL THE DETAILS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNE D REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. WHILE DECIDING THE SAID APPEALS ALL THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCES BY THE ASSESSSEE AND THE DETAILS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE POINTED OUT IN THE M.AS. WE RE CONSIDERED BY THE ITAT. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY WE EXTRACT THE FI NDINGS OF THE ITAT IN THE SAID ORDER (SUPRA): 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF T HE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADMITTED FACT IS THAT T HE VOLCKER COMMITTEE IN ITS SUMMARY OF REPORT HAS CLEARLY MENT IONED THAT IT HAS SEGREGATED ILLICIT PAYMENT MADE IN CONNECTION W ITH THE OIL AND HUMANITARIAN CONTRACTS UNDER THE PROGRAMMES. OI L SURCHARGES WERE PAID IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONTRAC TS AND HUMANITARIAN KICKGBACKS WERE PAID. THE TABLE CLEARL Y IDENTIFY THAT HOW MUCH WAS PAID TO THE GOVT. OF IRAG WITH RE SPECT TO PARTICULAR PROGRAMME CONTRACTS AND THE PRINCIPLE BA SIS FOR THIS ILLICIT PAYMENT DATA IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FR OM VARIOUS MINISTRIES OF GOVERNMENT OF IRAG AS WELL AS DATA RE TRIEVED FROM NUMEROUS BANKING INSTITUTIONS AND IN SOME CASES FRO M THE COMPANY CONTRACTORS THEMSELVES. WE FIND THAT THE CO MMITTEE IN M.A. NOS.. 21 TO 23/MUM/11 M/S CIPLA LTD. 3 ITS REPORT HAS CLEARLY INDICATED THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY IT IN SUP PLY OF GOODS TO THE GOVT. OF IRAG AND THE KICKBACKS IN THE FORM OF ASSF WERE PAID WHICH HAS BEEN TERMED AS ILLICT PAYMENTS. THE ASSES SEE ALSO NOT DENIED THE SUPPLY OF GOODS WITH RESPECT OF THE TRAN SACTIONS AS MENTIONED IN THE VOLCKER COMMITTEE REPORT. THE ASSE SSEE IS ONLY DENYING TO HAVE MADE ANY KICKBACK PAYMENTS. BUT SIN CE THERE IS A CLEAR INDICTION BY THE VOLCKER COMMITTEE IN ITS R EPORT ABOUT THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS BASED ON VARIOUS GOVT. DOCUMENTS AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DATA FR OM BANKING INSTITUTIONS. THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS C ONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AS THE THERE HAS BEEN CLEAR CUT INDICTION O F THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE VOLCKER COMMITTEE FOR MAKING ILLICIT PAYMENTS WHICH WERE FURTHER AUTHENTICATED BY VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/INFORMATIONS RECEIVED FROM MINISTRIES OF GOVT. OF IRAG AND THE INFORMATION RETRIEVED FROM VARIOUS BANKING INSTITUTIONS THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR GOING AGAINST SUCH FINDING UN LESS THERE IS A EVIDENCE WHICH CONTROVERTS SUCH FINDING. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY LEVIED PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSE E COMMITTED DEFAULT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS AND CLAIMING EXPENSES WHICH WERE KNOWN ILLEGAL PAYMENTS. THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IN THE YEARS UNDER CON SIDERATION. 6. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT ARE VERY CLEAR AND THE ITAT CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE ASSE SSEE DEALT ALL THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE POINTED OU T IN THE M.AS. AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RE CORD. SINCE THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HELP TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THEY ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. ACCO RDINGLY THE M.AS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. M.A. NOS.. 21 TO 23/MUM/11 M/S CIPLA LTD. 4 7. IN THE RESULT THE M.AS. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED AS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (V. DURGA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDI CIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 11 TH MARCH 2011 COPY TO:- 1) THE APPELLANT. 2) THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A) CONCERNED. 4) THE CIT CONCERNED. 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE C BENCH I.T .A.T. MUMBAI. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASST. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. MUMBAI. KV M.A. NOS.. 21 TO 23/MUM/11 M/S CIPLA LTD. 5 S.NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INTLS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 16/11/10 SR.P.S./P.S 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 18/11/10 SR.P.S/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./PS SR.P.S./P.S 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR. P.S./P.S. 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.P.S./P.S 8 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER