TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1074X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in favour of assessee - ITA No.6532/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 3-6-2016 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Department : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR For The Assessee : S h . Niren Gupta, CA ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM The Revenue has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30/9/2013 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-VII), New Delhi on the following grounds:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of ₹ 35,10,826/-.? 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and in not tenable on facts and in law. 3. That the appellant crave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period expenses. As a result, the ITAT sustained the addition of ₹ 67,31,919/- made by the AO which was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 2.2 On receipt of the order of the ITAT dated 2.3.2012 a show cause notice dated 3.10.2012 u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee, requiring the assessee to explain as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) may not be passed in the case of the assessee. In response thereto, the Assessee filed its written reply dated 10.10.2012 stating therein that the assessee has neither concealed particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income to attract the penalty provisions of section 271(1)(c). After considering the written submissions of the Ld. Counsel of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the issue in dispute at page nos. 6 to 7 in his impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order are reproduced as under:- I have perused the penalty Order, written submission, grounds of appeals out of the two additions under Section 14-A of ₹ 35,97,079 and the DDA misuse charges of ₹ 67,31,919/- the appellant company had paid taxes after IT A T order and did not prefer to go to Delhi High Court on further appeal, against the quantum order. The year under appeal is A.Y: 2008-09. The provisions of section14-A/Rule-8D is applicable from AY: 2008-09 onwards, as interpreted by Mumbai High Court in case of M/s. Godrej Boyce Ltd. (IRT) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3CD Section 44AB of the I.T. Act. The AR relied on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Considering the observation of Hon ble Supreme Court in above decision, I deemt it fit to conclude that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not correct and justified. The appellant had disclosed all facts in TAR and also paid all taxes after ITAT order. Hence, I delete the penalty under section 271(1) of ₹ 35,10,826/-. 7.1 After going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue in dispute as well as the orders of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. (2011-TIOL-753-HC-Del-IT) and the Hon ble Supreme Court of India dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
