DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD., PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/PUN/2015Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 July 2019AY 2004-055 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition itself was deleted in earlier appeals, there was no justification for imposing a penalty. Furthermore, in the absence of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) by the CIT(A). The penalty was related to expenses not eligible for deduction under Section 35DD, and the CIT(A) found no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be sustained when the underlying addition has been deleted, and whether penalty is leviable without concealment or inaccurate particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 35DD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Appellant: Shri R. Murlidhar &, Shri Prashant Gandhi
For Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa
Hearing: 19.07.2019Pronounced: 22.07.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeal)-1, Nashik dated 30.01.2015 for the assessment year 2004-05 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2 ITA No.427/PUN/2015 A.Y.2004-05

2.

The crux of the grievance of the Revenue is with regard to the deletion of penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) by the Ld. CIT(Appeal).

The first ground of appeal on penalty issue is with regard to the part expenses which are not eligible for deduction u/s.35DD of the Act.

3.

We observe quantum on this issue has been deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No.1302/PUN/2010 & ITA No.1303/PUN/2010 for assessment year 2004-05 following our order in ITA No.1311/PUN/2011 and ITA No.1414/PUN/2011 for the assessment year 2002-03 and in ITA No.1676/PUN/2011 and ITA No.54/PUN/2012 for the assessment year 2003- 04.

Since quantum itself has been deleted by the Tribunal, there is no justification for imposing penalty as per the binding judgments of the Hon‟ble High Courts which are as follows:

(i) CIT Vs. Cosmopolitan Trading Corporation reported as 274 ITR 640 by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. (ii) CIT Vs. Prakash Industries Ltd. reported as 322 ITR 622 by the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.

The legal proposition from these judgments is that when the entire addition has been deleted in the quantum appeal, no reason survives for sustaining the penalty.

3 ITA No.427/PUN/2015 A.Y.2004-05

4.

In view of the matter and judicial pronouncements as referred herein above, ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

5.

With regard to the ground No.2 in Revenue’s appeal, we have perused the case records and have given considerable thought to the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeal). That on examination of facts on records, it has been clearly stated in the order of the First Appellate Authority that there is neither “concealment of income” nor “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income” by the assessee. The assessee has taken a particular view point which may not be as per the satisfaction of the Revenue Authorities but that per-se will not lead to imposition of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act if the aforesaid parameters are not fulfilled. This view is fortified by the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). In absence of “concealment of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is no justification for imposing penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, ground No.2 of the Revenue’s appeal is also dismissed.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 6.

Order pronounced on 22nd day of July, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक / Dated : 22nd July, 2019. SB

4 ITA No.427/PUN/2015 A.Y.2004-05

आदेश की प्रनिलऱपप अग्रेपषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeal)-1, Nashik. 4. The CIT-V, Pune. , आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “सी” बेंच, 5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध ऩुणे / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Pune. गार्ड फ़ाइऱ / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

तनजी सधचव / Private Secretary आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune.

5 ITA No.427/PUN/2015 A.Y.2004-05

Date 1 Draft dictated on 19.07.2019 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 22.07.2019 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

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 →