TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pheld this deletion made by the ld. CIT(A). It finds mention in para 2.2 of the impugned order, that the assessee had pointed out before the ld. CIT(A) that the assessee’s claim of allowability of salary expenditure of ₹ 18,17520/- had been allowed by the Tribunal. However, the ld. CIT(A) has not dealt with, much less controverted, this assertion of the assessee. Now, once the Tribunal has deleted the disallowance, the very basis for levy of penalty to the extent of the amount of ₹ 18,17,520/- no longer exists. That being so, the penalty qua this amount is also deleted. The AO is requested to provide necessary relief to the assessee accordingly. - I.T.A No. 90/Agra/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-9-2017 - SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompetent Authority being the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Bhopal. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Subsequent to finalization of assessment order, the assessee had moved an application u/s 154 of the Act claiming rectification on account of depreciation which was allowed by the AO, as a result of which, income was re-computed at ₹ 22,34,510/- in place of ₹ 40,18,771/-. Against the assessment, the appeal was filed before the CIT(A), which appeal got dismissed. 3.1 In reply to the Show Cause Notice issued by the AO, the appellant had submitted that it had applied in the prescribed form No.56 for approval by the Chief Commissioner and it was further submitted that its application u/s 154 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , alter, delete or amend any ground or grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing. 4. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee requested that there was no failure on the part of the appellant to disclose any particular correctly. He further pointed out that the appellant's claim for allowability of Salary expenditure of 18,17,520/- too has been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal, Agra and thereafter, the income surviving was just of ₹ 4,16,990/-. He laid emphasis that at every stage full particulars were furnished and requested that the penalty so levied be cancelled. 5. The ld. CIT(A), vide the impugned order dated 17.02.2016, confirmed the penalty, observing as follows: 3.1 The submissions made by the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... though its conduct of claiming exemption was very grave still the AO has already been very soft when he had levied penalty just @ 100% as against the maximum leviable penalty of upto 300%. 3.3 Qua the reliance placed by the appellant on following decisions/judgments: (i) Yogesh R Desai v.ACIT , 2 ITR 267 Mum Trib. (ii) Silicon Graphics System (India) v. CIT , 122 TTJ Del. Trib. 800. (iii) CIT v. Rubber Udyog Vikas Pvt. Ltd. , 335 ITR 558 ( P H). (iv) Reliance Petro Products Ltd. v. CIT , 322 ITR 158 SC (v) KC Builders v. ACIT , 265 ITR 562 SC. (vi) CIT v. Siddartha Enterprises , 184 Taxman 460 (P H) it seen that they have been relied without demonstrating as to how these are applicab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the relief of salary of ₹ 18,17,520/- allowed by ld. CIT (Appeal) Gwalior vide his order dated 17/05/2006 and by the Tribunal, Agra Bench, vide order dated 26/06/2013; that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-III, Kanpur, Camp at Gwalior has passed the order on the ground of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, without considering the facts produced before him at the time of hearing and during the course of hearing before the Assessing Officer. 7. On the other hand, the ld. DR has placed strong reliance on the impugned order. 8. Section 10 (23C)(vi) of the Act, under which, the assessee claimed exemption, provides that non inclusion of income in computing the total income of a previous year of any person, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reimburse the amount to the assessee. The assessee claimed the expenditure to be of a revenue nature. The AO, vide order (APB 27) passed u/s 154 of the Act, disallowed the assessee s claim, observing that the expense had not been debited to the income and expenditure account, nor any claim was made at the time of assessment; that the expenditure was debited to the Grant in Aid account; and that therefore, there was no mistake apparent from the record. The ld. CIT(A), vide order (APB-28-31) dated 12.10.2012, deleted the disallowance. The Tribunal, vide order (APB 33-35) dated 28.06.2013, upheld this deletion made by the ld. CIT(A). 12. It finds mention in para 2.2 of the impugned order, that the assessee had pointed out before the ld. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
