AMAN TANNERY ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अधीकरण, �यायपीठ – “�व” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “B” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No.1802/Kol/2018 Assessment Year :2013-14 Aman Tannery V/s. Income Tax Officer 93/1D, Tiljala Road, Ward-29(1), 54/1 Rafi Park Circus, Kolkata-46 Aahmed Kidwai Road, [Wellesly Road], 5th [PAN No.AAKFA 7826 J] Floor, Kolkata-700 016 .. अपीलाथ� /Appellant ��यथ�/Respondent None अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/By Appellant Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT-DR ��यथ� क� ओर से/By Respondent 17-12-2019 सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 23-12-2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S.Godara, Judicial Member:- This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8 Kolkata’s order dated 28.06.2018 passed in case No. CIT(A),Kolkata-8/10190/2016-17, confirming the Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of ₹30,15,402/- in order dated 19.09.2016 in proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; ‘the Act’. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. 2. We have heard the learned departmental representative strongly supporting the impugned penalty of ₹9,31,759/- imposed in both the lower proceedings on the ground that the assessee’s depreciation claim of

ITA No.1802/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Aman Tannery Vs. ITO Wd-29(1), Kol. Page 2 ₹30,15,402/- qua its pollution control unit had been disallowed during the course of regular assessment for the reason that the vendor concerned M/s Toronto Enterprise denied to have supplied any such equipment to this taxpayer. It is in view of the said findings; which have attained finality, that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) hold the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Ms Biswas vehemently contended during the course of hearing that the lower authorizes have rightly penalised the assessee on account of its action having raised bogus depreciation claim of ₹30,15,402/-. She also took us to CIT(A)’s detailed discussion placing reliance on his identical findings in case of yet another party M/s Kasa Dwelling Pvt. Ltd. in assessment year 2014-15. Case fie indicates that the assessee had filed its quantum appeal ITA No.1057/Kol/2018 in the said succeeding assessment on the very issue. A co-ordinate bench’s order dated 21.08.2018 has restored the same back to the Assessing Officer for afresh factual verification. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that the CIT(A) has mainly relied upon his findings in assessment year 2014-15 only for confirming the impugned penalty. We therefore deem it appropriate to follow the very course of action herein as well. The Assessing Officer is directed to re-adjudicate the instant sole issue of correctness of penalty proceedings in the light of his final conclusion in the other assessment year’s quantum issue. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court 23/12/2019 Sd/- Sd/- (लेखा सद&य) (�या(यक सद&य) ( A.L.Saini) (S.S.Godara) (Accountant Member) (Judicial Member) Kolkata, *Dkp )दनांकः- 23/12/2019 कोलकाता ।

ITA No.1802/Kol/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Aman Tannery Vs. ITO Wd-29(1), Kol. Page 3 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant-Aman Tannery, 93/1D, Tiljala Road, Park Circus, Kolkata-46 2. ��यथ�/Respondent-ITO Ward-29(1) 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, [Wellesly Road], 5th Floor, Kolkata-16 3. संबं4धत आयकर आयु5त / Concerned CIT Kolkata 4. आयकर आयु5त- अपील / CIT (A) Kolkata 5. �वभागीय �(त(न4ध, आयकर अपील�य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गाड< फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से, /True Copy/ सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ4धकरण, कोलकाता ।