TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepted the assessment order and did not file any appeal, it cannot be presumed that assessee has admitted that the disallowance of interest was correct - even if the disallowance of interest is correct, that, per-se, will not make the assessee liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) because, for penalty to get attracted, the conditions stipulated in the concerned provisions are required to be fulfilled – Decided against Revenue. - ITA No. 4784/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 6-6-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri I. C. Sudhir,JJ. For the Appellant : Smt. Sudha Kumari, CIT-DR. For the Respondent : Shri Pradeep Dinodia and Shri R.K. Kapoor, Chartered Accountants. ORDER Per G. D. Agrawal, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is dire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounting to ₹ 81,83,43,431/- under Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee did not file any appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 143(3). The Assessing Officer levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of interest. Accordingly, penalty of ₹ 24,55,03,029/- was levied. On appeal, learned CIT(A) cancelled the penalty. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue. 4. At the time of hearing before us, learned CIT-DR argued at length. She stated that as per audit report, interest was disallowable but despite the audit report, assessee did not disallow the interest in the computation of income furnished by it. She further submitted that when the Assessing Officer disallowed the interest in the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest on the presumption that the loan was not utilized but in fact the loan was actually utilized and when those facts were brought to the notice of the auditor, he issued the revised certificate. Therefore, the disallowance of interest itself was not justified. He further submitted that even otherwise, now this issue is settled by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) wherein it has been held that even if there is a wrong claim of deduction, it will not amount to concealment of income. That there is no allegation by the Revenue that any incorrect facts were furnished or any facts were concealed. That all primary facts relating to deduction of interest were duly given before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd to provide other services to its customers. The denial by the A.O. of these claims would not, lead to the conclusion that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. There is no dispute that the information with respect to both the claims was provided in the returns filed by the assessee and the documents appended thereto. There is no ground in the appeal impugning this fact. The observations made by the Tribunal are pure findings of fact and no substantial question of law arises for our consideration; If a re-affirmation is required to be found in what has been observed hereinabove, the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowance of interest was correct. Even otherwise, even if the disallowance of interest is correct, that, per-se, will not make the assessee liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) because, for penalty to get attracted, the conditions stipulated in the concerned provisions are required to be fulfilled. In this case, the Assessing Officer has recorded no finding that the assessee has filed an inaccurate return. In view of the above, we, respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. (supra) and of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (supra), uphold the order of learned CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue. 9. In t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
