TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 1173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The issue in ground No.1 in ITA No. 1228/Chd/2010 raised by the assessee is against the status of the assessee being adopted as AOP. 4. The Ld. AR for the assessee fairly conceded that the issue stands covered against the assessee by the order of the Tribunal in ITA Nos. 697 to 699/Chd/2008 relating to assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 wherein status of local authority is not allowed to the assessee in view of the insertion of Explanation to section 10(20) of the Act and the assessee was treated as AOP. The learned DR placed reliance on the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 5. We find that the issue in the present appeal stands covered against the assessee in view of the rat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tus of AOP. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty of ₹ 28,05,869/- under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. The Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the claim of the assessee of being assessed as local authority was not accepted and such an incorrect claim does not make assessee liable to levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd [322 ITR 158 (SC)] and Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd [322 ITR 73 (P H)]. The Ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that the assessee had intentionally claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) erred in levying the penalty based on the said Explanation. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt Ltd [322 ITR 158 (SC)] and Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in CIT Vs. Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd [322 ITR 73 (P H)]. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is not liable to the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1228/Chd/2010 is dismissed and in ITA No.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
