VARDAAN MERCHANDISING PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26-(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5979/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 January 2022AY 2015-164 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 authorities below did not verify the assessee's explanation regarding the difference in the value of imported goods due to an inadvertent mistake by the accountant. In the absence of a specific rebuttal, the penalty was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return of income, and the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 6,95,871/-. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs. 2,20,000/- was levied under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was justified when the assessee provided a plausible explanation for the discrepancy, which was not adequately rebutted by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC-2” BENCH: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 11.01.2022Pronounced: 19.01.2022

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-9, New Delhi, dated 01-05-2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

2 ITA 5979/Del/2019 Vardaan Merchandising P. Ltd. “1. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 9, New Delhi has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case by confirming an unwarranted penalty of Rs. 2,20,000/- as levied by the Learned Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as much as on the facts of the case by arbitrary, disregading that there was no case being made out by the Learned Assessing Officer for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income and he without going into merits of the case sustained the penalty of Rs. 2,20,000/- on wholly erroneous and insufficient grounds.

It is, therefore, prayed that the unwarranted penalty of Rs. 2,20,000/- may kindly be deleted after providing an opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”

2.

At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that the notices of hearing was duly served upon the assessee as the acknowledgement due is returned by the postal department. Further it is seen that the notice sent earlier was returned by the postal department. Therefore, this appal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee.

3.

The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that for the assessment year in question the assessee had filed its return of income at Rs. 2,96,690/- on 30.09.2015. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was framed on 17.11.2017 u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, making an addition of Rs. 6,95,871/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated

3 ITA 5979/Del/2019 Vardaan Merchandising P. Ltd. penalty proceedings. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.

2,20,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

4.

Aggrieved against the order of Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who, after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

Learned Sr. D.R. supported the orders of authorities below and submitted that the authorities below were justified in levying the penalty and confirming the same under the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6.

I have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record.

The contention of the assessee before the authorties below was that the penalty was levied in respect of the addition of Rs. 6,95,871/- on the ground of difference in the value of imported goods, as per the submissions of the assessee and as per the information available on ITS. The contention of the assessee before the authorities below was that the difference in value occurred due to an inadvertant mistake by the Accountant of the assessee company. It was stated that the mistake was bona fide and when it came to the notice of the assessee the assessee corrected the same.

It was contended that the mistake was committed due to technical error by the part- time Accountant on account of wrong application of conversion rate of exchange of US Dollar to Indian rupees. I find that this contention of the assessee was not 4 ITA 5979/Del/2019 Vardaan Merchandising P. Ltd. verified by the authoriteis below by making necessary inquiry. In the absence of specific rebuttal for the explanation as provided by the assessee, I am of the considered view that authoriteis below were not justified in levying the penalty and confirming the same. I, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty in question.

7.

Assessee’s appeal is allowed.

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 →