TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N Gupta, I.T.P. ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.05.2013. The Revenue is aggrieved with the action of Ld. CIT(A) by which he has deleted penalty of ₹ 15,97,334/- made by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee has also filed cross objection to the appeal filed by the Revenue. The assessee has raised following grounds in C.O.: 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXXIII, New Delhi (hereinafter called C!T(A) for short) erred in not adjudicating on the grounds of appeal no 1,3 4 which are as below: Ground of appeal no 1 : That on the facts and in the circumstanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17,80,611/- ii) Addition on account of Dharmada account ₹ 23,56,346/- 3. The A.O. initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and imposed penalty for concealment of income. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and made various submissions. Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of various submissions made by the assessee, deleted the penalty imposed by the A.O. by holding as under: 3.6 Findings:- I have carefully considered the impugned Penalty order, written submission of Ld. AR and oral arguments during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR has levied penalty U/S 271 (1 )(C ) at the rate of 100% on tax sought to be evaded on three additions: 1. Provision of interest on SDF loans ₹ 17,80,611/- 2. Dharmada Collection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of holding that where the appellant is unable to substantiate a claim for deduction of certain amounts, penalty should not be levied. 3) The decision of Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT V Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. 157ITR 822, where it was held that the mere fact that a claim for expenditure stands disallowed does not led to the inference that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars in regard to that item. 4) The decision of Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of CIT V Ajaib singh Co. 253 ITR 630, where it has been held that if a claim made by an assessee under erroneous understanding of law has been disallowed, if cannot lead to the conclusion of concealment on the part of the assessee. 5) The decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars in the return of income in respect of addition - is a pre-requisite for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(C), has to be fulfilled .. Apart from other decisions he finally relied upon the recent decisions of Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT V Amtek Auto Co. 352 ITR 394, where the addition was made on debatable issue, penalty u/s 271(l)(C) was not laviable. I have considered entire judicial pronouncements on this issue cited by Ld. AR and the Assessing Officer. After considering these judicial pronouncement, I am of the opinion that unless a case is made, that the Assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income, Penalty u/s 27I(1)(c) is not leviable. In order to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e loan is from Sugar Development Fund and IFCI is only disbursing agency the assessee was under reasonable belief before the order of IT AT that section 43B is not applicable as the loan is sanctioned by the Government of India. Therefore, his argument that there was primafacie two opinion at the time of filing return of income and it is not a case of ex-facie bogus claim of deduction appears to be convincing. In view of the above and considering entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that penalty u/s 271(l)(C) is not leviable. 1) Addition on account of Dhrmada collection and interest on accumulated fund for ₹ 23,56,346/-:- Ld, A.R's main argument against the non levy of penalty U/S 27I(I)(C) on this qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also rightly imposed the penalty. As regards other addition on account of Dharmada, Ld. D.R. submitted that addition was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) and Hon ble ITAT on appeal had reversed the decision of Ld. CIT(A). 6. Ld. A.R. on the other hand invited our attention to computation of income as placed in paper book pages 1 to 8 and it was argued that in the computation of income, the entire information was submitted and therfore it was not a case of wrong furnishing of particulars and rather it is a case where all information was submitted and the very fact that different authorities had delivered different views on the two additions itself proves that two opinions were possible and therefore, penalty was not imposable in this case. Relyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
