Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue assailing the correctness of the order dated 06.02.2015 of CIT (A)-V, New Delhi pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year on the following grounds :- “
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in directing the AO to re-compute the penalty amount u/s 271(1)(c).
2. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) is erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
3. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
2. At the time of hearing, the ld. Senior DR was required to address the grievance posed by the finding of the CIT (A) wherein he has directed the AO to recompute the penalty on the amount of tax sought to be evaded pursuant to the order of the ITAT in the quantum proceedings. On going through the finding at page 3 of the impugned order dated 06.02.2015, the ld. Senior DR was unable to point out the grievance of the Revenue. The ld. Senior DR submitted that the partial relief granted made in the quantum proceedings may have been the triggering factor for raising the ground.
The ld. AR, Mr. Rahul Chourasia appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is also aggrieved by the aforesaid finding and an appeal has been filed. However, he was unable to state on which date the said appeal is listed. 4. We have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record qua the specific grievance of the assessee. On a careful reading of the same, we find there is no occasion whatsoever for the Revenue to be aggrieved by the finding. The specific finding of the CIT (A) is extracted hereunder : - “ I have perused the assessment order, written submission and discussed the matter with the AR very carefully. The appellant had paid interest @18% per annum to 10 parties (Directors and their relatives) on deposits made by them in the company and claimed deduction in P&L A/c. The AO found that the claim of interest was excessive and unreasonable. So he made it 12% interest per annum and thus gave deduction accordingly. In the process, he disallowed Rs.63,04,151/- in the quantum assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 26.12.2011 (Page 16 of Asstt. order). The ITAT, Delhi had allowed 16% of interest per annum against AO's allowance of 12% interest. Thus finally, the disallowance after IT AT order was Rs.15,76,038/- on account of interest disallowance to Directors and their relatives, HUF concerns. The other disallowance was Rs.729/- on late deposit of TDS. These two figures came out to be difference between returned income and assessed income on which the AO is directed to impose minimum penalty @100% on tax sought to be evaded. The AO is directed to compute the minimum tax sought to be evaded on concealed income of Rs.15,76,767/- (Rs.15,76,038 + Rs.729), and collect the penalty in accordance with law.”
4.1 Accordingly, on a reading of the above, we find no grievance which can be said to have arisen as far as the Revenue is concerned. Accordingly, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal, we leave the issue of correctness of the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) open for consideration in the assessee’s appeal stated to have been filed before the ITAT. Assessee would be at liberty to assail the finding of the CIT (A) on merits in terms of the ground raised in the appeal which is 2 stated to have been filed and the coordinate Bench would be at liberty to address the issues on merits wherein the finding given by the CIT (A), it is noted, is adverse to the assessee and is stated to be challenged before the ITAT. Said order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.
5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.