VIKAS CONSTRUCTION CO.,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, PATAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2202/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 April 2019AY 2008-093 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanations regarding the interest on refund and the minor difference in contract receipts were acceptable. The non-availability of separate bifurcation in Form 26AS and the minor nature of the difference were considered significant.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for additions made during assessment. These additions were for non-deduction of tax on interest, underreporting interest on income tax refunds, and a difference in contract receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly sustained for the additions made due to alleged concealment or inaccurate particulars of income, considering the assessee's explanations and supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV&SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

आदेश/O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH - AM: The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the order of CIT(A) Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad in confirming the penalty of Rs. 66,694/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, in respect of disallowance Rs. 51,960, Rs. 1,57,032 and Rs. 6,884 made in the assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act.

2.

The brief fact is that assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act was made on 19.01.2016. The AO has made addition of Rs. 51,960/- on account of non-deduction of tax on interest payment to MegmaFincrop Ltd. The second addition of Rs. 1,57,032/- was made on account of not fully showing of interest on income tax refund received by the assessee. The third addition of Rs. 6,884/- was made on account of

ITA NO. 2202/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 2

difference in reporting of contract receipt. The AO has initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(c) of the Act. During the course of penalty proceeding in response to show- cause notice the assessee has explained that disallowance of Rs. 51,960/- on account of non-deduction of tax was not a concealment of particular of income. Regarding under reporting of interest on income tax refund of Rs. 1,57,032/-, assessee has explained that the bifurcation of interest and amount of tax refund was not provided, therefore, there was error in showing of correct interest amount received on income tax refund. In respect of addition of Rs. 6,844/- on account of contract receipt the assessee explained that sum has occurred on account of minor differences raised by R & B Department of Gujarat in filing form No. 26AS. The AO has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and he was of the view that assessee has concealed the particulars of income, therefore, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 66,694/-.

3.

Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty levied by the AO reiterating the reasons stated by the AO.

4.

During the course of appellant proceedings before us the Ld. Counsel has submitted paper book containing detail and submission furnished before the AO and CIT(A) during the course of assessment and appellant proceedings. The Ld. Counsel has also referred different pages of paper book and contended that as per Form No. 26AS there is no separate bifurcation of interest amount and tax amount refunded to the assessee. He has also stated that there is a minor difference on account of contractual receipt and there is no element of concealment.

5.

On the other hand the Ld. DR has placed reliance on the order of CIT(A).

6.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. With the assistance of the Ld. Representatives we have gone through the material placed in the paper book and noticed from page no. 23 of the paper book that no separate information about the interest and tax element of refund has been provided in Form No. 26AS issued to the assessee. Therefore, as per page no. 10 & 11 of the paper book the assessee has made working of interest receivable on the refund on estimated basis as per the material on record. In respect of difference of Rs. 6,844/- in

ITA NO. 2202/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-14 3

contractual receipt it is noticed that as per actual contract the total contract receipt was to the amount of Rs. 15,44,92,552/- whereas the contract receipt shown by the assessee was at Rs. 15,44,85,708/-;after taking into account the huge volume of contract receipt minor difference of Rs. 6,884/- for want of reconciliationin the account of the assessee and in the account of the contractee R & B Department of Gujarat is not a case of furnishing inaccurate particular of income.

In the light, of the above facts and circumstances and non-availability of separate calculation of interest on refund and other technical fault as explained above. We consider that Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the AO. Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 08/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 08/04/2019 Tanmay True Copy आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4.आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध,आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file.

By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,अहमदाबाद ।

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 →