TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, the Revenue has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without realizing the fact that when return was filed, there was the order of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, in which it was held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80-I of the Act. Therefore, there is neither concealment of income nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part of the assessee. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Revenue has wrongly levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the impugned assessment years whereas the assessee has claimed deduction under section 80I of the Act on the basis of the order of the Tribunal. - Deci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 271(1)(c). 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur has failed to examine the facts and records placed on records and instead of examining the technical objections raised by the appellant, has resorted to use of cursory and derogatory remarks in the Appellate Order, which is against the principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that the Proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were barred by limitation. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur erred in law as well as on facts in not appreciating that even on merits, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were not applicable to the appellant's case as there was neither any concealment of particulars of income nor there was furnishi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Certificate from an Independent Chartered Accountant. 11. That the Ld CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that at the time of filing the return for the above said year, there was already an order of the Hon'ble ITAT in favour of allowance of claim u/s 80-I of the appellant and there was no order against the appellant. The order of the Hon'ble High Court came as late as 16.10.2012, much after filing of the return which again is subject matter of SLP at the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thus the claim u/s 80-I was genuine and bonafide. 12. That further merely because a claim of the applicant u/s 801 was not accepted by the High Court there is no cause of levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 80I of the Act. Copy of the same is available at pages 113 to 122 of the compilation of the assessee. This order was followed in the case of CIT vs. Kothari Products Ltd., Kanpur in Income Tax Reference No.94 of 1995. Copy of the same is placed at pages 124 to 128 of the compilation of the assessee. Against this judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, an SLP was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. After the judgment of the Hon'ble High court of Allahabad confirming the denial of deduction under section 80I of the Act, the Revenue has initiated penalty proceedings in the impugned assessment years under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer was also confirmed by the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the assessee is entitled for deduction under section 80I of the Act. Against this order of the Tribunal, a Reference was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, and the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has declined to answer the question and accordingly the order of the Tribunal was confirmed. It is also evident from the record that the assessee has filed returns of income for the impugned assessment years claiming deduction under section 80I of the Act after the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessee has a reasonable belief that it is entitled for deduction under section 80I of the Act. The legal position has been changed after the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in the assessee s cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
