TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee. - ITA No. 600/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-11-2018 - SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao For The Revenue : Shri Sunku Srinivasulu ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of CIT(A) - 2, Hyderabad, dated 19th February, 2015 for AY 2008-09. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company filed Return of Income for the Asst. Year 2008-09, on 30.09.2008, declaring an income of ₹ 32,14,348/- after claiming deduction u/s.10B of the Act of ₹ 1,35,34,288/-. The assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 30.11.2010, determining the total income at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2)(ii) to Section 10B of the Income Tax Act, which defines convertible foreign exchange. 2.3 In response, assessee stated that he is having exports other than third party exports also. In this regard, the assessee was asked to show proofs for remittances in foreign currency to the extent it is claiming them to be export sales. It is clearly brought to the notice of the assessee that the entire third party export sale will not be allowed as exemption u/s.10B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in response to which the assessee has admitted that he is not receiving any inward remittance in foreign currency corresponding to third party exports. In view of the above observations, the AO held that the exemption claimed u/s.10B of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered the fact that there was no concealment of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income attracting the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of ₹ 36,39,432/-. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the detailed explanations filed before him and the legal pronouncements in the matter and cancelled the penalty levied. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing. 5.1 The assessee filed a petition for admission of the following ground of appeal, on the ground that the assessee inadvertently omitted to raise a formal ground to this effec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 73 Taxmann.com 248 (SC) wherein the Apex Court upheld the decision of the Hon ble High Court, in which, the Hon ble High Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal of the revenue, who came in appeal against the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal relying on a decision of Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory, [2013] 359 ITR 565/210 allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer u/s 274 read with section 271(1)(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 9.1 In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
