GENUS POWER INFRASTRUCTURES LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 942/JPR/2016Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 February 2017AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty on commission and brokerage as the additions were deleted in quantum appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding penalty on 80G donation, stating the assessee failed to provide material evidence of payment to a registered institution.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) on disallowance of commission and brokerage. The assessee appealed against the confirmation of penalty for disallowance of donation under Section 80G.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the primary addition is deleted. Whether penalty is leviable for disallowance of 80G donation when payment was made by cheque but to an unregistered institution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 80G

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@
For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Hearing: 20/02/2017Pronounced: 22/02/2017

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 942/JP/2016
ITA No. 948/JP/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M.

These two cross appeals by the assessee and the revenue are directed

against the order of ld. CIT (A)-III, Jaipur dated 19.08.2016 pertaining to A.Y.

2008-09. First, we take up the revenue’s appeal in ITA No. 948/JP/2016. The

revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on disallowance of commission & brokerage and service tax of Rs. 4,14,72,012/- and legal & Profession and consultancy charge to M/s. Vidarbha Electrical Nagpur amounting to Rs. 35 lac on the ground that these additions have been deleted by the ITAT vide its order dated 20.05.2016 in ITA No. 38/JP/2012 but the Department has not accepted the decision of the ITAT and appeal before Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has been filed on these issues.

2) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, withdraw or insert any ground or grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.

2.

At the outset, ld.Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Hon’ble

ITAT while dealing with the above grounds in quantum appeal in assessee’s

own case, after discussing the matter at great length, has allowed the claim of

the assessee by deleting the addition.This fact is not controverted by the ld.

D/R. We find that the revenue’s ground for filing the appeal is that the

3 ITA Nos. 942 & 948/JP/2016. M/s. Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd.

revenue has not accepted the decision of the ITAT rendered in the quantum

proceedings in ITA No. 38/JP/2012.

3.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on

record. The revenue has not placed any material suggesting that the order

passed in quantum appeal was stayed or rejected by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional

High Court. As the addition has been deleted by the Tribunal in quantum

proceedings, in our considered view, penalty does not survive. Therefore, we

do not see any reason to interfere into the order of ld. CIT (A), the same is

hereby upheld.

4.

Now, we take up assessee’s appeal. The assessee has raised the

following grounds of appeal :-

1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on a sum of Rs. 196,750/- paid as donation and claimed as deduction u/s 80G of the IT Act, 1961, which was disallowed solely due to non-furnishing of documents, though the same was paid through payee’s a/c cheque and thus the same deserves to be deleted.

1.1 That, ld. CIT (A) further erred in not appreciating the legal position that mere rejection of deduction claimed does not ipso facto results in concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, particularly when it was not disputed that payment was made by cheque, thus, the penalty so confirmed deserves to be deleted.

1.2 That ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the penalty without appreciating the fact that no satisfaction was recorded by Assessing Officer before levying penalty and it was levied merely

4 ITA Nos. 942 & 948/JP/2016. M/s. Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd.

for want of donation receipts, thus levy of penalty is not justified and deserves to be deleted.

2.

That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal.

The only effective ground is against sustaining the penalty of Rs.1,96,750/-

made in respect of confirmation of disallowance of deduction/s 80G of the

Income Tax Act, 1961.

5.

The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in

the written brief and submitted that the authorities below were not justified in

imposing penalty and confirming the same. He submitted that the payment

was made through banking channel. It is sufficient to demonstrate that it was

not a bogus payment. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of CIT vs. Reliance

Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 36 DTR 449 (SC).

6.

On the contrary, the ld. D/R opposed the submissions. He submitted

that the assessee did not furnish any evidence suggesting that payment made

to the Institution was entitled for acceptance of donation. Under these facts,

the authorities below were justified in levying the penalty.

7.

We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on

record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no

dispute with regard to the fact that the payment has been made through

5 ITA Nos. 942 & 948/JP/2016. M/s. Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd. banking channel. However, there is no material suggesting that the payment

was made to the institution which was registered under section 80G of the

I.T. Act. In the absence of this vital material evidence, the explanation of the

assessee is devoid of any merit. The ground raised in the appeal is dismissed.

8.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are

dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22/02/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ ¼ dqy Hkkjr ½ (BHAGCHAND) (Kul Bharat) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 22/02/2017. d/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s. Genus Power Infrastructures Ltd., Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO Ward 7(2)/DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 942 & 948/JP/2016) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

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 →