9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for undervaluation of closing stock of raw material. 2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for undervaluation of stock lying in work-in-progress (WIP). 3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for disallowance of depreciation on assets not used for business purposes. 4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for various additions in the assessment year 1998-99. Summary: 1. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Undervaluation of Closing Stock of Raw Material: The assessee undervalued its closing stock of polyester film imported from Korea, leading to an addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- by the AO. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition at Rs. 2,47,732/-. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the issue was debatable and there was no under-declaration of physical stock. The penalty was canceled based on the judgment of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd., which held that mere sustenance of addition does not automatically lead to penalty. 2. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Undervaluation of Stock Lying in Work-in-Progress (WIP): The AO made an addition of Rs. 7,07,358/- for undervaluation of WIP. The CIT(A) quashed the penalty, relying on the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2001-02, where it was held that additions made on an estimate basis do not lead to penalty. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the addition was based on estimates and did not warrant penal action. 3. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Disallowance of Depreciation on Assets Not Used for Business Purposes: The AO disallowed depreciation of Rs. 2,93,104/- on plant & machinery and dyes & moulds not used for business purposes. The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, noting that the claim was based on the concept of "block of assets," which is supported by various case laws. The Tribunal upheld this decision, agreeing that the issue was debatable and the claim was not false. 4. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) for Various Additions in the Assessment Year 1998-99: - Undervaluation of Stock Lying in WIP: The CIT(A) quashed the penalty following the Tribunal's order in the assessee's own case for A.Y. 2000-2001. - Excess Deduction Claimed u/s 80-IA: The CIT(A) canceled the penalty, noting that the reduction in deduction was due to overhead expenses and was supported by the judgment of the Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Lal. - Foreign Exchange Fluctuation Loss: The CIT(A) deleted the penalty, noting that the disallowance was partly due to capital nature and lack of details, and relying on the Apex Court's judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all counts, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and confirming that the issues were debatable and did not warrant penal action. The judgments of the Apex Court and the Jurisdictional High Court were heavily relied upon to support the conclusions.
|
