Delhi High Court
Dy. Cit vs Rahoul Siemssen Engg. (P) Ltd. on 8 April, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004 140 TAXMAN 100 Delhi
ORDER
This appeal by the revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on a solitary ground that he has erred in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 1,58,544 on the basis that no concealment was involved.
2. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.
2. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the orders of the authorities below and documents placed on record.
3. On careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessed has claimed deduction of interest payment made to the department under sections 217, 201 (1A) in assessment year 1987-88 and under sections 220(2), 234B, 201(1A) and 220(3) in assessment year 19909 1, but the same was disallowed by the assessed company being not deductible. The matter went to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) re-examined the issue and noticed that the assessed had debited this interest payment from taxable income, hence it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that at any moment it had concealed those figures. A claim can be preferred, but it can be admitted or rejected by the assessing officer. He accordingly deleted the penalty.
3. On careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, I find that the assessed has claimed deduction of interest payment made to the department under sections 217, 201 (1A) in assessment year 1987-88 and under sections 220(2), 234B, 201(1A) and 220(3) in assessment year 19909 1, but the same was disallowed by the assessed company being not deductible. The matter went to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) re-examined the issue and noticed that the assessed had debited this interest payment from taxable income, hence it cannot be said under any stretch of imagination that at any moment it had concealed those figures. A claim can be preferred, but it can be admitted or rejected by the assessing officer. He accordingly deleted the penalty.
4. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and placed heavy reliance upon the assessing officers order.
4. The revenue preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and placed heavy reliance upon the assessing officers order.
5. The learned counsel for. the assessed besides relying upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Harsh Vardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 212 in which it has been held that the assessed has claimed some deductions which are debatable but it cannot be said that it has concealed any income of furnished inaccurate particulars of income for evasion of tax.
5. The learned counsel for. the assessed besides relying upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v. Harsh Vardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 212 in which it has been held that the assessed has claimed some deductions which are debatable but it cannot be said that it has concealed any income of furnished inaccurate particulars of income for evasion of tax.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, I find that in the instant case claim of the assessed is debatable. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the penalty levied by the revenue. Following the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshvardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd. (supra) I confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has rightly deleted the penalty.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and from a careful perusal of the orders of the lower authorities and in the light of the aforesaid judgment, I find that in the instant case claim of the assessed is debatable. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the penalty levied by the revenue. Following the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Harshvardhan Chemicals & Mineral Ltd. (supra) I confirm the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), who has rightly deleted the penalty.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue, is dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue, is dismissed.
