TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... egarding the income of assessee as observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt.Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. - Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. - ITA No. 4327/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2017 - SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh.Rahul Kampani, CA For The Respondent : Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R. ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present penalty appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 13/06/14 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-18, New Delhi for assessment year 2008-09 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the order of Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preme Court in Liberty India came after the assessee had filed his return which led to the ITAT deciding on 24/01/2012 that deduction u/s 80lB was not allowable to the assesse . 5. The appellant has respectfully to submit that since the assessee has made full and complete disclosure of all details as required and a mere change in decision by the learned Courts should not be a ground for levying penalty. 6. It will be worthwhile to mention the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 wherein they have stated that where there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there would be no ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITR 570 (Del) CIT vs Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. (2007) 288 ITR 670 (Del) b) Merely because a claim for deduction was found inadmissible, penalty does not necessarily follow. Balaji vegetable Products (P) Ltd. vs CIT (2007) 290 ITR 172 (Kar) c) The Supreme Court rationale of the decision in CI'T (Addl.) vs Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 205 ITR 244 and Sir Shadi Lal Sugar General Mills Ltd. vs CIT (1987) 168 ITR 705 (SC) it was held that a wrong claim with disclosure of full facts does no merit levy of penalty. d) The AO disallowed the deduction u/s 80-IB claimed by the assessee Initiated penalty proceedings. The Tribunal held that there is no merit in holding the assessee to have furnished inaccurate particulars of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income declaring total income of ₹ 51,97,330/ on 01/10/08 after claiming deduction of ₹ 22,47,425/-under section 80IB. The assessment was completed on 24/12/10 wherein assessing officer disallowed deduction claimed by assessee under 80 IB of the Act on the ground that, receipt of duty drawback from the Customs amounting to ₹ 1,45,90,2430/-on exports effected by assessee, did not form part of the total income derived from the industrial activities. It was submitted by authorities below during the quantum proceedings that assessee had filed its ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iance upon the orders of the authorities below. 3. As rightly pointed out by Ld.AR it is observed that assessee followed the ratio laid down by Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Elteck SGS Pvt. Ltd.(supra). Even for the previous year 2007-08 assessee s claim under 80 IB was allowed by this Tribunal against which appeal of revenue before Hon ble Delhi High Court was dismissed. These facts has not been disputed by the authorities below in any manner whatsoever. 4. Under these circumstances we are of the considered opinion that mere making of claims which is not sustainable in law subsequently will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee as observed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
