MARUTI NUTRIOUS FOOD LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. CIT (A), AHMEDABAD-2, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1099/AHD/2018Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 October 2022AY 2013-144 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 held that the mere crediting of an amount in the books, whether genuine or not, is not the sole test for determining if inaccurate particulars were furnished. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns a penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was initiated by the CIT(A) for a non-genuine credit of Rs. 20,04,000/- found in the assessee's books.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied solely on the basis of a non-genuine credit in the books of accounts, without considering the nature of furnishing particulars.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 11/06/2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad [“CIT(A)” in short] for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: The order of learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) -2 [CIT(A)] is bad in law as well on facts on the following grounds;

(1) The learned CIT(A) has erred in levying penalty of Rs.6,19,240 on enhancement of income Rs.20,04,000 U/s.68 in his appellate order dt. 28/09/2017. In as much as the amount of enhancement made is not credit or deposit U/s.68 & same is not claimed as deduction in P&L A/c. AY 2013-14

2 (2) The learned CIT(A) had already confirmed disallowance made by A.O. of Depreciation of Rs.12,02,400 on assets/Computers/Printers purchased of Rs.20,04,000. Therefore, Enhancement of purchase of assets is not receipt of money of deposit/credit U/s.

68.

Hence penalty U/s.271(1)(c) is wrongly levied.

3.

The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was completed by the Assessing Officer on 18.03.2016 by making addition of the claim of depreciation of Rs. 12,67,282/-. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) vide order dated 28.09.2017 enhanced the income relating to bogus credit of Rs. 20,04,000/- in the name of M/s K. Shyamlal & Co. in the books of accounts u/s 68 of the Act. During the course of appellate proceedings, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income in respect of credit of Rs. 20,04,000/- in the name of M/s K. Shyamlal & Co. as the credit was not found to be genuine. The CIT(A) vide order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied penalty on account of credit of Rs. 20,04,000/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before us.

5.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice at the address given in Form No. 36 of the appeal memo. No new address was intimated to the registry by the Assessee. AY 2013-14

7.

Heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on credit of Rs. 20,04,000 found to be non genuine by the CIT(A) thereby enhancing the said amount from the original assessment order dated 18.03.2016. The CIT(A) has observed that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income. But after going through the records, it can be seen that the said amount was credited in the books of accounts whether it is genuine or not cannot be the test of determining that the said particulars were inaccurately furnished by the Assessee before the Revenue authorities. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act does not sustain. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21st October, 2022 at Ahmedabad. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad, Dated 21/10/2022 ट".सी.नायर, व."न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS AY 2013-14

आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. संबं"धत आयकर आयु"त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad

5.

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध , आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

स"या"पत ""त ////

सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →