TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.727/LKW/2014, ITA No.728/LKW/2014 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2015 - SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri V. S. Negi, D. R. For The Respondent : Shri P. K. Tandon, Advocate ORDER PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue for the same assessment year i.e. 2010-2011 and out of these two appeals, one appeal i.e. I.T.A. No.728/Lkw/2014 is in quantum proceedings and the second appeal i.e. I.T.A. No.729/Lkw/2014 is in course of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Both the appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e details of R D expenditure regarding claim of expenditure to the extent of ₹ 37.38 lacs. 3. Learned D.R. of the Revenue supported the order of the Assessing Officer u/s 154 whereas Learned A.R. of the assessee supported the order of learned CIT(A). 4. We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we find that as against the deduction allowed by the Assessing Officer to the extent of ₹ 27.43 lacs, the CIT(A) has allowed deduction to the extent of ₹ 37.38 lac and therefore, it is seen that the extra deduction allowed by CIT(A) is to the extent of ₹ 9.95 lacs only. The tax effect on this relief of ₹ 9.95 lacs allowed by learned CIT(A) is definitely less than ₹ 4 lacs and therefore, as pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has disclosed in its return of income in respect of the expenses claimed and shown in its return of income but the A.O. has found the same as disallowable expenses in the absence of approval/ sanction of Secretary, DSIR, New Delhi. The said approval was received by appellant from Secretary, DSIR, New Delhi vide letter dated 06.02.2013. In said approval letter the Secretary, DSIR has granted the approval of revenue expenditure allowable u/s 35(2AB) of I.T. Act of ₹ 37.38 lacs against claimed by appellant at ₹ 49,05,284/-. The A.O. has allowed the said expenses as revenue expenditure only ₹ 27,43,358/- against the approval of DSIR u/s 35(2AB) ₹ 37.38 lacs and accordingly the A.O. has levied penalty u/s 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f scrutiny assessment order. Therefore, I hold that the appellant's case does not deserve to impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and the penalty levied by A.O. of ₹ 10,02,053/- cannot be sustained looking to the facts mentioned above. Accordingly the penalty levied by A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T.Act. 1961 is hereby cancelled. 8. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial decision (i) 259 ITR 212 (Raj.)- CIT Vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals Mineral Ltd. Held- No penalty of concealment if the claim of the assessee is debatable and arguable. (ii) 39 ITR 233 (Del.) (iii) 261 ITR 67 (Raj) - Chandra Bagga Vs. ITAT (2003) (iv) CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC). Held: Merely bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which were incurred and recorded in the books of accounts. He has further given a finding that the A.O. has never doubted the genuineness and correctness of the revenue expenditure claimed and shown by assessee on which penalty was levied. He has also given a finding that only sole reason to impose the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was that necessary approval from DSIR was not received till completion of scrutiny assessment order. Under these facts, it was held that the penalty is not justified u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thereafter, the CIT(A) has referred to various judgments in Para 8 of his order particularly the judgment of Hon'ble apex court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 36 DTR 449 (SC) wherein it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
