TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1347X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue against the order dated 31.03.2010 of the CIT(A)-I, Kolkata pertaining to A.Yr. 2004-05 2. The only issue raised by the Revenue in this appeal is in respect of deletion of penalty of ₹ 21,08,228/- levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act 3. The brief facts of the issue are that the AO levied penalty of ₹ 21,08,228/- by observing that :- The assessee furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount the various judicial pronouncements, cited certain facts are obvious. (a) The AO has not disputed the claim of the appellant in respect of the scheme filed with BIFR. He has only alleged that the order of the BIFR was not filed before him. However, as stated before me by the ld. A/R, the order of BIFR which is pending till date meant the copy of same could not be filed. (b) As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e act. The submission made by the appellant that the penalty in the instant case could not be imposed there being diverse views in respect of such payment being made during the various financial years and allowable also appears to be justified since in a case of difference of opinion between two authorities, penalty could not suo moto be imposed on the basis of such additions. All things c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A) in his order dated 23.03.2007 and further the said order of the ld. CIT(A) has been confirmed by the ITAT. Therefore, he requested to confirm the levying of penalty by setting aside the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and restore of the order of the A.O. 5. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee by relying on the judgement of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Reliance Pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
