TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act" ) against the order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, Bench-'A' ( hereinafter called the Tribunal ) in I.T.A. No. 785/Chandi/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96,raising the following substantial question of law:-"Whether on the facts and law the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified to hold that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in view of the Explanation 4(a) to Section 271(1)(c) due to inaccurate particulars of income by wrongly claiming the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(iii) of I.T.Act, as it was engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals )-I, Ludhiana, who vide his order dated 08.06.2004 confirmed the penalty levied under the said section. Still dissatisfyed with the aforesaid order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, who vide order dated 30.03.2005, cancelled the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that there was no attempt on the part of the respondent to defraud the revenue or conceal the facts, and also that the respondent had paid the tax in advance as also on self assessment and further that the claim made by the respondent was a bonafide claim and that all the particulars relating to computation of income were disclosed. Feeling aggrieved against the said finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... garcane from members and manufactures sugar which involves use of power therefore it is not entitled to special deduction of income under Section 80P(2) (a)(iii) of the Act. However, at the time of filing of the return on 31.10.1995 there were various decisions such as Baroach District Cotton Sales Ginning and Pressing Society v. CIT Ahmedabad 177 ITR 418, Addl. CIT v. Ryots Agricultural Produce Co. Operative Marketing Society Ltd. 115 ITR 709 ( Ker.), M.R. Marketing Processing Co.op. Society v. CIT 193 ITR 108 ( Ker. ) and CIT v. Karjan Co.op. Society Ltd. 129 ITR 821 ( Guj. ), on the basis of which society believed that it was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act. Thus, the issue of entitlement to said deduction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
