TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee deserves to be accepted. In this regard, the CIT(A) has also noticed the fact that the IT industry was undergoing a recession phase at the relevant point of time. The complaint that there was non-cooperative attitude on the part of the assessee is also not true. The non-cooperative attitude is cited by the Revenue in the context of assessee not having furnished any reply to the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act before imposing penalty u/s. 271(1(c) of the Act. In our view, this cannot be the basis to impose penalty as the penalty is with reference to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with reference to the original assessment proceedings. As far as the complaint of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner : Dr. Shankar Prasad K., Jt. CIT(DR) For the Respondent : Shri Raj Kumar Shanbhogue, CA ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Judicial Member ITA No. 1298/B/2014 is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 30.6.2014 of the CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore relating to assessment year 2009-10. In this appeal, the Revenue has challenged the order of CIT(Appeals), whereby he cancelled the order of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was imposed by the Assessing Officer under the following facts. The assessee is a company, engaged in the business of computer software development. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2009-10 belatedly on 18.10.2010. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome and imposed penalty equal to 100% tax sought to be evaded. 5. Before the CIT(Appeals), the assessee firstly submitted the reason why the return of income was not filed on or before the due date u/s. 139(1) of the Act. The assessee had explained before the CIT(A) in an affidavit that the assessee faced several odds due to crash in the business following economic meltdown in the USA where its business was concentrated, leading to attrition in employment in the assessee s office in Bangalore due to desertion of employees seeking better opportunities elsewhere. There was a death in the family of Principal Officer and he could not attend the work several days leading to Finance Accountancy sections not being properly looked after. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ition of penalty u/s. 271(1(c) of the Act. 9. The CIT(Appeals) on a consideration of the aforesaid facts, firstly came to the conclusion that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee in filing its return of income belatedly. The CIT(A) also held that disallowance of deduction u/s. 10A was made purely on technical grounds and there was no non-disclosure or inaccurate particulars of income furnished by the assessee. The CIT(A) also held that adhoc disallowance of ₹ 10 lakhs out of administrative selling and other expenses were made only for non-production of bills vouchers and there is no material on record to show that the expenses disallowed were bogus or personal in nature. The CIT(A) therefore was of the view that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so not true. The non-cooperative attitude is cited by the Revenue in the context of assessee not having furnished any reply to the show cause notice issued u/s. 274 of the Act before imposing penalty u/s. 271(1(c) of the Act. In our view, this cannot be the basis to impose penalty as the penalty is with reference to concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income with reference to the original assessment proceedings. 14. As far as the complaint of the Revenue that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars by making wrong claim of deduction u/s. 10A of the Act is concerned, we find that this is not the basis on which deduction u/s. 10A was denied to the assessee. As rightly contended by the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
