GUJARAT SETCO CLUCH LTD. (NOW KNOWN AS : SETCO AUTOMOTIVE LTD.),PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY. CIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2724/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2019AY 2004-053 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was based on a CESTAT order which held that the assessee had explained the reason for non-accounting of goods and the goods were not finished goods. The CESTAT order was not considered during penalty proceedings.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 33,47,983/- on account of excess stock found during a search. The assessee claimed the stock was in the process of final packing and later cleared after excise duty payment. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c).

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied when a subsequent CESTAT order provided an explanation for the excess stock, which was not considered by the lower authorities during penalty proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 69B,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Bhavin Marfatia & Nirmit Mehta

PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M.

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara dated 11.09.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2004-05.

ITA No. 2724/Ahd/2017 2 . A.Y. 2004-05 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of ld. CIT(A)-4, Vadodara in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 3,01,990/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.

3.

The fact in brief is that ld. A.O. has finalized assessment u/s. 143 r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 20.12.2006 by making an addition of Rs. 33,47,983/- on account of excess stock uncovered during a search operation carried out by the Central Excise Department on 09.10.2003.

4.

Thereafter, ld. CIT(A) has sustained the aforesaid addition made by the Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid excess stock as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act. The ld. A.O. has also initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of particulars of income by issuing of notice u/s 274 of the Act on 20.12.2006. In response to the notice issued the assessee has explained that the impugned excess stock was laying in the work in progress and the said stock was released by the Excise Authorities and entered in the excise record and later on cleared for dispatch after payment of excise duties. Therefore, the assessee has submitted that there was no excess stock found by the department and such stock was subsequently released by the Excise Department. Therefore, the penalty proceeding may be dropped. The ld. A.O. has not agreed with the submission of the assessee stating that there was no concrete explanation given by the assessee and assessee has also failed to submit order from the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal to substantiate its stand that stock was already explained. Consequently, the ld. A.O. has levied penalty of Rs. 12,01,090/- on the ground that assessee has concealed particulars of his income to the extent of Rs. 33,47,983/-.

ITA No. 2724/Ahd/2017 3 . A.Y. 2004-05 5. Aggrieved assessee has failed before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. During the course of appellate proceeding before us, the ld. counsel has submitted paper book containing detail of submission made before the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment and appellate proceeding. He has also submitted a copy of order of Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal placed at page no. 146 to 171 of the paper book and contended that as per Para 9 of this order, it is held that the assessee has explained the reason for non accounting of the goods in the RGI and it is the claim of the assessee that the goods were in the process of final packing and the same is not disputed by the Revenue. It is further held that in the absence of any contrary evidence these goods were not finished goods and confiscation of the goods was unwarranted.

6.

In the light of the above facts and order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal as cited above, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the matter afresh after considering the aforesaid decision of the Excise Tribunal as the same was not considered during the penalty proceeding and appellate proceeding before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Order pronounced in Open Court on 08- 05- 2019

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIALMEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 08/05/2019 Rajesh

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →