TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the assessee did have the necessary COD permission for filing the appeal before the tribunal. He also drew our attention to the COD approval granted to the assessee in item No.9 in the meeting of COD on 13.08.2008. It was the submission by the Ld. A.R. that penalty had been levied on two counts. The first count was on account of the addition made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 21.3.2000 wherein the claim of the assessee in respect of exclusion of TDS in foreign countries had been rejected. The second was on account of the addition on account of the excess provision of interest tax as made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) read with section 147 on 28.1.2003. In regard to the 1st issue, which was against the reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that for the Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1997-98, on the identical issue, penalty had been levied by the A.O. and the same had also been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) and the COD had not granted the revenue the permission to file appeal before the tribunal. He drew our attention to pages 43 to 45 of the Paper Book as also pages 55 to 61 of the Paper Book which were the copies of the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty for the Assessment Year 1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively. In the said order of Ld. CIT(A), he drew our attention to the reasons given by the Ld. CIT(A) for deleting the penalty wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the mere disallowance of claim would not make the claim of the assessee to fall within the category of concealmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of Section 275(c) of the Act. It was the submission that the order passed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act on 28.11.2003 was not appealed against nor was the same a subject matter of any revision u/s 263. It was the submission that as the penalty order has been passed beyond the period of 6 months from the end of the month in which the assessment order was passed on the said issue, the penalty as levied was barred by limitation. He placed reliance upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alagendran Finance Ltd., reported in 293 ITR 1 (SC) to support his claim that the limitation was to run from the order in which the issue was decided. It was the submission that the issue having been decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been coming right from the Assessment Year 1974-75 and it has been a subject matter of substantial litigation. It is noticed from the assessment order that the A.O. has disallowed the claim of the assessee by basically following the assessment order of the earlier year. It is also noticed that on mere disallowance of the claim of the assessee, it cannot be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of his income or concealed its income. In fact the breakup of the claim of the deduction was very much specified in the return of income and a note to the effect had also been enclosed along with the return of income. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the claim of the assessee though not allowable on merits, still ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
