9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 96X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue against the order dated 10.05.2013 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] agitating the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 13,61,914/- which was levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee during the year incurred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed deduction under section 35D. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, we noticed that said expenses are incurred after commencement of business operations, Vide our assessment submissions dated 12 October 2009, we have withdrawn the said claim and consequently while passing the assessment order, the said amount was added back to the total income. In doing so, the assessing offic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, we have suo moto withdrawn out claim. We once again re-iterate the fact that original claim made in return of income was not willful. We also would like to inform you that claim for deduction was made inadvertently. AO considering the facts in our case, invoked provisions of s. 271(1)(c) and levied penalty on account of this disallowance made in assessment order. In this connection, we would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty so levied by the AO. 5. After hearing the rival contentions and going through the impugned order, we find that it is not a case for attraction of the provisions of section 271(1)(c). The assessee has explained that the error committed by it was inadvertent and due to bonafide mistake. We agree with the finding of the Ld. CIT (A) that in such a case the levy of penalty was not justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
