GANDEVIKAR JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1), BARODA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1665/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 September 2017AY 2010-114 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 disallowance was due to a genuine mistake in interchanging written down values of asset blocks, not concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The penalty was therefore deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, engaged in manufacturing and trading of ornaments, filed its return of income. During scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation on closing stock valuation, leading to an addition to income. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied for a bona fide error in computation of depreciation, when the assessee itself corrected the mistake during assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c)

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, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, & SHRI S. S. GODARA.

Hearing: 11.09.2017Pronounced: 26.09.2017

PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the CIT(A)-I, Baroda’s order dated 22.04.2014, in case no. CAB-I/026/2013-14, confirming Assessing Officer’s action imposing penalty of Rs.12,94,000/-, in proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both sides. Case file perused.

2.

We advert to the relevant facts now. This assessee is a company manufacturing and trading in gold, silver and diamond ornaments/articles. It filed its return of income on 26.08.2010 declaring total income of Rs.2,63,83,980/-. The

ITA No. 1665/Ahd/14 (Gandevikar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 -

Assessing Officer thereafter took up scrutiny assessment on 08.06.2012 assessing assessee’s income as Rs.2,73,23,060/- including depreciation disallowance of Rs.38,87,603/- regarding valuation of closing stock pertaining the preceding assessment year 2009-10 to be taken as opening stock of the impugned assessment year for computing consequential profits. He further initiated the impugned penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee does not seem to have preferred any appeal against the same. Quantum proceedings attained finality accordingly.

3.

We now come to the impugned penalty proceedings. The Assessing Officer sought for the instant tax payer’s response regarding the above quantum addition. The assessee filed its reply on 26.06.2012 inter alia submitting therein that it had mistakenly interchanged written down value of various blocks of assets resulting in the abovestated quantum disallowance of depreciation amounting to Rs. 38,87,603/-. It therefore clarified that the same was not either an act of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars thereof. The Assessing Officer did not agree. He observed in the assessment order that the assessee had although filed the requisite particular pertaining to written down value of assets in the course of scrutiny but same were not sufficient to discharge it from consequential penalty as there was no revised return filed u/s.139(5) of the Act. He was therefore of the view that the assessee’s above alleged conduct in submitting wrong particulars of block of assets/WDV amounted to both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer therefore imposed the impugned penalty of Rs.12,94,000/- in his order dated 28.03.2013.

4.

The CIT(A) confirms the Assessing Officer’s action. This leaves the assessee aggrieved.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions. Case file perused. There can hardly be any dispute about the certain legal proposition in view of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts

ITA No. 1665/Ahd/14 (Gandevikar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 -

322 ITR 158 (SC) that quantum and penalty proceedings are parallel wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in the course of former does not ipso facto attract latter penalty provision. We keep in mind the said fine distinction to deal with the relevant facts in the instant case. The assessee’s case throughout has been that it had inadvertently interchanged relevant written down value of the corresponding block of assets. We sought further clarification in this regard from the case file. Learned counsel took us to page 13 of the CIT(A). The assessee had pleaded before the CIT(A) that the opening written down value of furniture @ 10% as prescribed was mistakenly taken as corresponding rate @ 60% in case of computer’s block. His case therefore is that all this resulted in excess depreciation claim being raised for depreciation purpose. It is not in dispute that the assessee admitted its arithmetic mistakes during the course of scrutiny itself. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut this crucial fact. His only plea is that the assessee has not filed its revised return of income. We find no merit in the instant plea as the fact remains that it was purely a case of computation error which stood corrected at assessee’s behest itself. We therefore accept assessee’s arguments assailing correctness of the impugned penalty amounting to Rs.12.94lacs. The same stands deleted.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is accordingly allowed.

[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2017.]

Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 26/09/2017 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT

ITA No. 1665/Ahd/14 (Gandevikar Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT) A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 -

4.

आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →