TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finality and these are pending before the AO and the Tribunal for a fresh adjudication as per order of Hon’ble High Court dated 17.5.2012 and order of the Tribunal dated 31.3.2010. Therefore, we find it appropriate to restore the issue of penalty for a fresh adjudication to the file of AO with the direction that the AO shall decide the penalty proceedings after affording due opportunity of hearing for the assessee and keeping in view the outcome of quantum proceedings orders by respective quasi-judicial and judicial forums and without being prejudiced from the earlier penalty and impugned appellate orders. - Decided in favour of revenue for statistical purposes - I.T.A.No.4356/Del/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2015 - SHRI N.K. SAINI AND SHRI C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order, the AO made an addition of ₹ 1,42,34,278/- by disallowing excess and incorrect deduction u/s 80IA of the Act on account of profit from trading of VSAT equipment of ₹ 50,42,717/-, service charges for computer software updating of NMS of ₹ 57,58,000/-, FDRs pledged with Bank for availing non fund based working capital limits of ₹ 8,38,626/- treating it as income from other sources and profit earned from segment charges of ₹ 25,94,935/-. Ld. DR further submitted that the AO after considering and rejecting the submissions and explanation of the assessee imposed a penalty of ₹ 68,56,155/- on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act which is 150% of the total amount of tax sought to be evaded. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of ₹ 45,70,770/- by holding that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of ₹ 1,16,39,343/- by claiming deduction u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that the ITAT vide its consolidated order dated 31.3.2010 dismissed the appeal of the revenue and also deleted the disallowance of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act in respect of income from trading of VSAT equipment amounting to ₹ 50,42,717/-. Ld. Counsel further pointed out that as regards the income from software division, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the AO and confirmed the disallowance of deduction in respect of interest income. Ld. counsel further contended that the assessee filed an appeal before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be acceptable by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that since the orders of AO/CIT(A) and Tribunal are awaited on all four issues, therefore, penalty levied by the AO and deleted by the CIT(A) cannot be held as final and the issue of penalty may kindly be restored to the file of AO for a fresh adjudication as per outcome of the respective judicial authorities on all four issues. 7. Ld. DR placed rejoinder and submitted that the AO was right in imposing penalty on all four issues which was wrongly deleted by the CIT(A), therefore, order of the CIT(A) may kindly be set aside by restoring that of the AO, however, ld. DR fairly accepted that the issue of disallowance and addit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
