Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Kaveri Gas Power Ltd., Chennai vs Acit Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai on 7 September, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ
धकरण, ''सी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 'C' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज , लेखा सद य एवं
ी ध#ु व$
ु आर.एल रे %डी, या(यक सद य के सम* ।
[BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER]
S.P.No.271/CHNY/2018
(in आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1876/CHNY/201)
नधा रण वष /Assessment year : 2013-2014.
M/s. Kaveri Gas Power Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner
No.3, Ranganathan Garden, of Income Tax,
15th Main Road Extension, Company Circle 4(2)
Anna Nagar, Chennai.
Chennai 600 040.
[PAN AABCK 4793Q]
(Petitioner) (,-यथ//Respondent)
Petitioner by : Shri. G. Baskar, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri. R. Clement Ramesh
Kumar, Addl. CIT.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 07-09-2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 07-09-2018
आदे श / O R D E R
PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Assessee through this stay petition seeks stay of recovery of penalty of C1 Crore levied on it u/s.271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act'').
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that penalty was levied on an enhancement done by ld. Commissioner of Income Tax :- 2 -: SP No.271 /2018 (Appeals) in the appeal proceedings. According to him, such enhancement was on account of an unfair adjustment made by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on book profits computed u/s.115JB of the Act. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the enhancement of C4,03,93,361/- was made citing a reason that provisions made by the assessee towards replacement of crank shaft, service charges and civil works were unascertained liability. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that assessee had produced sufficient evidence to show that the provisions were made on a scientific basis. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty as well as addition made by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were still to be disposed off by the Tribunal. According to him, assessee will be put to great financial hardship if the recovery of penalty is made by the Department.
3. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that assessee could not show any good reason for grant of a stay.
4. We have heard both the parties, perused the orders of lower authorities and the stay petition filed by the assessee. Assessee is pleading for stay of penalty levied u/s.271(1) (c) of the Act. Levy of penalty was made based on an enhancement done by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on the computation made u/s.115JB of the Act, considering the provisions created by the :- 3 -: SP No.271 /2018 assessee on three items to be of an unascertained in nature. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative before us is that these three provisions were definite in nature and assessee had produced invoices from M/s. Rolls Royce for repairs executed subsequently. Since the appeal of the assessee in quantum proceeding is still to be considered in the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that recovery of the penalty has to be kept in abeyance. We grant a stay on the recovery of penalty of C1 crore levied on the assessee, for a period of six months or date of hearing of the case whichever is earlier.
5. In the result, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on Friday, the 7th day of September, 2018, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ध#ु व$
ु आर.एल रे %डी) (अ ाहम पी. जॉज )
(DUVVURU RL REDDY) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE)
या(यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
दनांक/Dated:7th September, 2018.
KV
आदे श क " त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ'/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु(त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. $वभागीय " त न-ध/DR
2. ".यथ'/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु(त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF