TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 748X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted by AO for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty u/s 271(1)(c). See CIT versus Reliance Petro Products Private Limited [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 5757/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 13-12-2017 - SHRI P.K. BANSAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. P.Damkanunjna, Sr.D.R. For The Respondent : Sh. Santosh Aggarwal, Adv. ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present penalty appeal has been filed by Revenue against order dated 27/08/14 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-8, New Delhi for assessment year 1984-85 on the following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of by way of common order dated 30/06/94 granting part relief to assessee. A reference was made to Hon ble High Court in RA No. 1003/Del/94 wherein following 4 questions of law were referred for esteemed opinion of Hon ble High Court under section 256(1) of the Act. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the Excise Duty on unsold items is to be excluded while determining the value of the closing stock as adopted by the assessee. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the expenditure on account of repairs, taxes which are specifically allowable u/s 30 to 36 are not covered u/s 37(2A) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ced the chart of additions made by the AO in the assessment order and in penalty order as well. The chart shows that the additions made on both Staff Transit Houses were mostly deleted by the Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 30.06.1994 vide ITA Nos.1134 1231 of 1988 in the assessee's own case. It is evident from the order dated 16.08.1994 passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuance to give effect to the aforesaid ITAT order dated in ITA No.1134 (pp 216-219).Further it is seen that the Question under section 256(1) of the Act raised on this issue by the department was rejected by ITAT vide its order dated 28.09.1995 in RA No.1003 of 1994 and no further question on this issue under section 256(2) of the Act was raised by the dep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n all the particulars of income expenses in the return with Tax Audit Report and accompanying documents/letters. It is not a case to impose the penalty as the appellant's claim was bona fide and had not concealed any income which has been unearthed by the AO. In these circumstances, I quash the penalty order passed by the AO and delete the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act of ₹ 20,72,130/-. 2.5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A) revenue is in appeal before us now. 2.6. Ld. DR submitted that the penalty has been levied on the basis of the order passed by this Tribunal subsequent to the order of Hon ble High Court. Ld. DR placed reliance upon the order passed by Ld. AO. 2.7. Ld.AR in support of his a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 2 and 3. He submitted that there is nothing mentioned regarding any concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars in these paragraphs. 2.8. He accordingly submitted that penalty deserves to be deleted on the basis of the above contentions submitted by him. 3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both the sides in the light of the records placed before us. It is observed that the disallowance has been reaffirmed by Hon ble Delhi High Court on the basis of a decision passed by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Britannia Industries Ltd. vs. CIT and Ors. (supra) . It has thus been submitted that certain expenditure was disallowed merely because of a difference of opinion, without there being any allegation in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
