TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that Assessing Officer made certain additions in the scrutiny assessment. However later on, CIT (Appeals) had treated it differently by allowing and deleting certain additions - This cannot give rise to the penalty proceedings - For levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c), non bona fide conduct of the assessee should be apparent from the facts and circumstances – Decided against Revenue. - TAX APPEAL NO. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned advocate Mr. Pranav Desai for the Revenue and with his assistance examined the papers. 3. For the sake of convenience both the questions are being answered together. Question raised is with regard to the amount of penalty deleted by the Appellate Tribunal by a detailed discussion. It is contended by the learned counsel that certain material particulars since were not appropriately put forwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addition u/s.40a(ia) for non-deduction and payment of tax deducted at source of Rs.1,41,82,162/- is reduced to Rs.1,04,59,113/- by CIT(A). (ii) Disallowance of depreciation of Rs.47,331/- on factory shed, plant machinery TV is deleted. (iii) Disallowed depreciation on cars and vehicles Rs.2,54,836/- which is restricted to Rs. 50,967/- by CIT(A). (iv) Disallowance of depre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns. In this case, the explanation of the assessee is not found false or non bona fide. Therefore, we are of the view that ld. CIT(A) rightly cancelled the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act. We therefore, upheld the order of ld. CIT(A)." 7. Tribunal also discussed at length the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2010) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
