Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH,
Before: SHRI S.S.GODARA & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
Per Bench : These assessee’s four appeals for assessment years 2006-09 to 2009-10, arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-11’s separate Din and Order Nos.ITBA/APL/S/250/2021-22/1039762278(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2021-22/1039763122(1), ITBA/APL/S/250/2021 - 22/1039763618(1) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2021-22/1039764256(1) all dated 15-02-2022, confirming the Assessing Officer’s identical action imposing penalty(ies) of Rs.1,29,19,973/-, Rs.87,49,716/-, Rs.57,54,325/- and Rs.2,85,73,986/-; respectively, in proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in short ‘Act’.
ITA Nos.282 to 285/PUN/2022 DM Corporation Private Limited
Heard both the parties. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s instant
four appeals involving the foregoing varying penalty sums (supra)
hardly require us to delve deeper in the relevant factual matrix. Suffice
to say, it is an admitted fact that the impugned penalties pertain to the
quantum disallowances/additions made by the Assessing Officer
regarding the assessee’s section 80IA deduction raised for the first time
in section 153A assessments completed in furtherance to the search in
issue dated 25-08-2011. Both the learned lower authorities admittedly
hold that the said identical quantum disallowance indeed attracts the
impugned penalty provision.
This leaves the assessee aggrieved.
Mr. Jasnani at the outset filed before us this tribunal’s common
quantum order dated 23-03-2018 allowing the corresponding Revenue’s
appeals ITA Nos.1805 to 1811/PUN/2014 thereby restoring the
Assessing Officer’s action making the impugned disallowance. We
hardly find any reason to agree with the Revenue’s instant stand. A
perusal of the said quantum discussion in para No.22 makes it clear that
the learned coordinate bench had accepted the Revenue’s arguments for
the sole reason that the assessee could not have claimed the impugned
deduction in all these four years since involving unabated assessments
u/s.153A of the Act. It had also rejected the Revenue’s cases in
ITA Nos.282 to 285/PUN/2022 DM Corporation Private Limited
“abated” assessment at the same time thereby accepting the assessee’s
very section 80IA deduction. It is for this precise technical reason that
the Revenue has succeeded before the tribunal in quantum cases and the
assessee has stated to have been pursuing its remedy before the hon’ble
higher judicial forums.
Mr. Jasnani at this stage vehemently argued that the assessee’s act
and conduct in raising the impugned section 80IA deduction claim in
section 153A assessment proceedings itself forms a sufficient reason to
hold that ‘it has concealed and furnished inaccurate particulars of its
taxable income’.
We see no reason to accept the Revenue’s stand. We make it clear
that the hon’ble Apex court’s landmark decision in CIT Vs. Reliance
Petro Products (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the law long back
that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel in nature wherein each
and every disallowance/addition made in the course of the former does
not ipso facto attracts the latter provision. Hon’ble jurisdictional high
court’s decision in PCIT Vs. JSW Steel Ltd. (2010) 422 ITR 1 (Bom.)
also holds that an assessee can very well raise its deduction claim for the
first time in section 153A assessment proceedings. Mr. Jasnani could
not pinpoint any exception to this proposition in section 153A itself qua
raising of such a claim in abated or unabated assessments. Be that as it
may, we make it clear that we are dealing with penalty proceedings only.
ITA Nos.282 to 285/PUN/2022 DM Corporation Private Limited
We thus conclude that both the lower authorities have erred in law and
on facts in imposing these penalties in the impugned four assessment
years before us. The same are directed to be deleted. The assessee
succeeds in its instant identical sole substantive grievance therefore.
Delay of 13 days in filing of all these four appeals is condoned in
the larger interest of justice.
These assessee’s four appeals are allowed in above terms. A copy
of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th December, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (S S GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 30th December, 2022 Satish
आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A) concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय�ितिनिध,आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “B” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड�फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.
ITA Nos.282 to 285/PUN/2022 DM Corporation Private Limited
S.No Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 28-12-2022 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 29-12-2022 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed JM/AM before the Second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/AM 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