Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

ITO, Ward 13 (4), New Delhi. Vs. M/s. Ocean Metals (P) Ltd., G 55, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash Part II, New Delhi 110 048.
August, 06th 2014
           IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                (DELHI BENCH `E' : NEW DELHI)

       BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                            and
           SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                          ITA No.5778/Del./2012
                     (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06)

ITO, Ward 13 (4),               vs.          M/s. Ocean Metals (P) Ltd.,
New Delhi.                                   G ­ 55, Masjid Moth,
                                             Greater Kailash Part ­ II,
                                             New Delhi ­ 110 048.

                                             (PAN : AAACO0922A)

      (APPELLANT)                                   (RESPONDENT)

              ASSESSEE BY : Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate
              REVENUE BY : Shri Sunil Sharma, Senior DR

                                       ORDER

PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

      This appeal filed by the revenue emanates from the order of CIT

(Appeals)-XVI, New Delhi dated 23.07.2012 for the assessment year 2005-

06.

2.    In this case, the revenue has challenged the deletion of penalty levied of

Rs.13,00,326/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3.    We have heard both the sides on the issue. At the time of the hearing,

the ld. AR submitted that this penalty has been levied on the addition

sustained by the CIT (A) in respect of the addition made on account of low
                                           2                 ITA No.5778/Del./2012

gross profit to the extent of Rs.35,02,280/-. The original addition on this

issue was of Rs.53,77,921/-. The CIT (A) deleted the penalty on the basis

that there is a difference of opinion regarding the quantum of addition and

directed to delete the penalty.       Ld. AR also submitted that this addition

sustained by the CIT (A) has been deleted by the ITAT in the quantum appeal

filed by the assessee while deciding the ITA No.2172/Del/2009 in its order

dated 14.03.2014. He draw our attention to paras 18 & 19 of the aforesaid

ITAT order. The relevant para of the order is reproduced below :-






      "18. The Ld. CIT (A) has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in
      rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Act, on the basis that there
      was drastic decline in the gross profit of the assessee as compared to the
      preceding years, the payment of excise duty of Rs.39 lac included in the
      sale price, will only have marginal impact on the operational results of the
      assessee and that the assessee has not explained the mismatch in the
      monthly production figure and corresponding production expenses. He has
      also noted that the assessee has not added the excise duty component while
      valuing its closing stock, though it is specifically provided in section 145A
      of the I. T. Act. He has also noted that the assessee has made certain sales
      to its sister concern, at a value lower than its purchase price of raw
      material. We find that Ld. CIT (A) while noting above observation has not
      considered the explanation of the assessee on those observations made by
      the Assessing Officer. Still there is no dispute that payment of excise duty
      of Rs. 39lac included in the sales price will only for marginal impact on the
      operational results of the assessee, which will not bring down the gross
      profit to such an extent and that there were mismatch in the assessees
      monthly production figure and corresponding product
      ion expenses.

      19.     We are of the view that the Ld. CIT (A) rightly upheld the action of
      the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3). But
      merely because books of account were rejected the action of the authorities
      below in estimating the profit by adopting a particular GP rate without
      assigning any reason in support resulting into the trading addition cannot be
      justified. The addition made by the Assessing Officer at Rs.53,77,921/- and
      sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) at Rs. 35,02,280/- on account of trading
      addition applying an estimated gross profit rate without assigning the very
      basis, thus cannot be justified. In this regard, we find support from the
      decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gotan
                                            3                 ITA No.5778/Del./2012

        Lime Khanij Udhyog (supra, wherein the Hon'ble High Court has been
        pleased to hold that Section 145 of the I.T. Act, 1961, only provides the
        basis on which computation of income is to be made for the purpose of
        determining the amount of tax. The provision by itself does not deal with
        addition or deletion to the income. Therefore, mere rejection of, or some
        deficiency in, the books of account would not mean that it must necessarily
        lead to additions to the sustained income.

        20.    We thus while setting aside the addition made and sustained by the
        authorities below direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.
        Ground no.3 of the appeal of the Revenue is thus rejected and ground
        no.1,1.1to 1.4 of the appeal preferred by the assessee are partly allowed.

        21.     In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed and
        that preferred by the assessee is partly allowed."


Thus, the basis on which the penalty was levied itself has been got deleted in

the quantum appeal, therefore, there is no question of sustaining any penalty

for concealment of income. We sustain the order of CIT (A) for deleting the

same.






4.      In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

     Order pronounced in open court on this 4th day of August, 2014.

                  Sd/-                                         sd/-
           (ABY T. VARKEY)                                (B.C. MEENA)
          JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated the 4th day of August , 2014.
TS
Copy forwarded to:
     1.Appellant
     2.Respondent
     3.CIT
     4.CIT(A)-XVI, New Delhi.
     5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
                                                                      AR, ITAT
                                                                     NEW DELHI.

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting