9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant had filed its return of income on November 26, 98 declaring total income of Rs.16,19,36,250/-. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act assessing total income at Rs. 21,30,51,560/-. In the assessment order the deduction u/s. 80HHC was allowed at Rs. 37,30,456/-. Against the order passed by the AO, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, Mumbai ("the CIT(A)"). The CIT(A) deleted certain disallowance and upheld certain others. The Appellant being aggrieved in respect of the upholding the disallowance made by the AO preferred appeal before the Hon'ble tribunal. The Hon'ble tribunal vide its order dated February 19, 2008 upheld certain disallowance. Thereafter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming deduction u/s. 80HHC was apparent from the return and even detailed working along with the Auditors report in the Form 10CCAC was filed * Full explanation as to the basis of working was submitted during the course of assessment proceedings vide letter dated November 6, 2000. * Provisions of sec 80HHC were considered in detail at the time of framing assessment order and deduction of Rs. 37,30,456/- was allowed instead of the claim of the Appellant for Rs. 38,28,672. * All the facts were accepted at the time of passing the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. * Deduction of Rs. 37,30,456/- was claimed u/s 80HHC in view of the legal position then prevailing. The Appellant had relied on the decision of various tribunals and courts including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the claim. 7. The department is in appeal before the ITAT, against the order of the CIT(A) wherein the penalty has been cancelled by the CIT(A). 8. Before us, the DR strenuously argued to sustain the penalty order, on the other hand, the Authorised Representative supported the decision of the CIT(A). 9. We have heard the arguments of either side and have noted the facts. At the out set, we must observe, that the penalty must emanate from incorrect particulars or concealment embedded in the return filed by the assessee, which is detected and/or substantiated by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings, that too, only on the basis of appraisal of facts and which are patently visible. Anything or any facts which is either debatab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Rs. 37,30,456/- The Appellant had preferred an appeal against the disallowance of the deduction u/s 80HHC made by AO. The CIT(A) vide his order dated January 11, 2005 dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The appellant thereafter preferred appeal before the Hon'ble tribunal. Vide its order dated April 28, 2008 the Hon'ble tribunal dismissed appellant's appeal on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in case of IPCA Laboratories (266 ITR 521)". 10. Under these circumstances, penalty cannot be levied even if the department argues the case of Dharmendra Textiles as delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, because the disallowance made by the AO as a consequence of later judgment, that too in the second round, in the re-assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
