9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pleted on December 21, 2009 under section 147/143(3) of the Act at Rs. 98,74,970. Against the addition of Rs. 29,62,491, penalty proceedings were initiated. The Assessing Officer has observed that the assessee did not qualify as a small scale industry as the investment in the plant and machinery in this undertaking was of Rs. 351.59 lakhs. Consequently, the claim of deduction under section 80-IB of the Act of Rs. 29,62,491 was disallowed. This disallowance was confirmed in appeal. It was a case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee did not qualify as small scale industry as the investment in the plant and machinery was more than the monetary limit prescribed, hence, the assessee had made wrong claim of deduction under section 80-IB(3), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as under : 4.3. I have considered the submission of the assessee as well as the impugned order. I have also gone through the plethora of cases relied upon by the assessee. The learned Assessing Officer had initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) as it has been held that the assessee has filed inaccurate particulars and so concealed his income to the extent of Rs. 29,62,491 inasmuch as the claim for deduction under section 80-IB(3) on ground of it being a small scale undertaking was false. As per section 271(1)(c), penalty is to levied if the assessee has concealed particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 1997 and 2009 as evident from the impugned order. All material facts as regards its investment cannot be said to have been withheld by the assessee as the return filed was accompanied by audited accounts and Form 10CCB. Consequently considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to hold that the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts and so it is apparent that there is neither any concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income. The penalty levied is therefore directed to be deleted. 5. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed." 4. The learned Departmental representative relied upon order of the Assessing Officer and submitted that the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istrict Industry Centre, Patiala. The limit in fixed assets in plant and machinery for the unit to be registered as SSI unit was fixed at Rs. 3 crores vide notification dated December 10, 1997 which was amended later on and monetary limit was revised to Rs. 1 crore. Subsequently, clarification issued on March 14, 2000 was issued stating that units that have obtained permanent registration in terms of earlier notification shall continue to remain as a unit of SSI in spite of reducing the investment limit to Rs. 1 crore. Subsequently, further notification was issued by virtue of which, certain items under drugs and pharmaceutical category were included and under which the investment limit was increased upto Rs. 5 crores. However, in notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The decision of the hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Deepak Kumar [2010] 38 DTR 118 (P&H), in which it was held as under : "The assessee having filed the return of income claiming exemption under section 10(36) in respect of profit on sale of shares on the bona fide belief based on the advise of his counsel and affidavit of the counsel admitting his mistake being accepted by the appellate authority while deleting the penalty, no substantial question of law arises." 8. The order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Asst. CIT v. Perfect Forgings [2011] 11 ITR (Trib) 166 (Chandigarh) in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strial unit and was entitled for deduction under section 80-IB earlier and it is only because of some additions made in year under consideration, the assessee would not have qualified for deduction under section 80-IB of the Act. The assessee, therefore, made a bona fide claim to deduction under section 80-IB as per the notification issued lastly which covered such unit upto Rs. 5 crores though there may be some restriction thereon. It is, therefore, not a case of filing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing the particulars of income. The decision cited clearly support the finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) for cancelling the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. In view of the above discussio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
