TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n u/s 80IB. The assessee had correctly disclosed the quantum of investment in plant and machinery in the return of income. The conduct of the assessee clearly show the bona-fide belief that the assessee had about its eligibility for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Although vide subsequent notification dated 10.12.1999, the assessee ceased to be SSI undertaking. The assessee had made full disclosure of income in return of income, as well as before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is not a case which would attract levy of penalty. We concur with the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limit of investment was reduced to ₹ 1 Crore. During the course of assessment proceedings for assessment year 2004-05, the Assessing Officer observed that the investment made by the assessee in plant and machinery is more than ₹ 1 Crore and hence the assessee ceases to be a SSI Unit. The reassessment proceedings were initiated against the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB in the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceeding u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act against the assessee for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in all the three assessment years under appeal. The Assessing Officer levied penalty i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well that the same are not admissible and getting away from clutches of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ). 2. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c ) which was confirmed by the predecessor of this CIT(A). The predecessor of the CIT(A) vie order dated 22.09.2008 has confirmed the penalty after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and also satisfying himself that the assessee had failed to rebut the presumption contained in Explanation 1 to section 271(1) (c ). 3. For these and such other ground as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 4. The appellant craves to add, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting penalty levied u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the Act. The penalty has been levied on the ground that the assessee has wrongly claimed deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee company had started manufacturing in the year 1996 and the assessee was granted status of SSI unit in the year 1998. Subsequently, vide notification dated 24.12.1999, the upper limit for investment in fixed assets i.e plant and machinery was reduced from ₹ 3 Crores to ₹ 1 Crore, whereas the investment of the assessee had already crossed the limit of ₹ 1 Crore. However, the assessee continued to claim deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. It has been contended on behalf of the assessee before the Fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to inaccurate particulars. 9. In the present case, the assessee had given reason for claiming deduction u/s 80IB. The assessee had correctly disclosed the quantum of investment in plant and machinery in the return of income. The conduct of the assessee clearly show the bona-fide belief that the assessee had about its eligibility for claiming deduction u/s 80IB of the Act. Although vide subsequent notification dated 10.12.1999, the assessee ceased to be SSI undertaking. The assessee had made full disclosure of income in return of income, as well as before the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
