9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the instance of the department is directed against CIT(A) order dated 21.6.2013. The relevant assessment year is 2007-08. 2. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration is whether the CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,37,711/-. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as follows:- That assessment u/s 143(3) was completed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs. 4,37,711/- on 28.03.2011. Against the penalty order the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A} who vide Its order dated 21.6.2013 deleted the entire penalty holding that there is no element of concealment in cases where the assessee has claimed certain expenses as deductible and those expenses have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in the present case, assessee had wrongly claimed deduction while being aware of well settled legal position, in which case penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is attracted as laid down in CIT vs Rubber Udyog Vikas P. Ltd, 335 ITR 558." iii) "The appellant craves for the permission to add, delete or amend the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal." 7. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s (P) Ltd. 335 ITR 558 (2011 (P&H). This decision has been taken note of by CIT(A) at para 3.8 of the impugned order. The dictum laid down in case of Rubber Udyog Vikas (P) Ltd. is that incorrect claim would not tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars unless it is established that assesee has acted with malafide intention. The decision relied on by the revenue is in no way helpful to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
