TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated. This being a pure difference of opinion is further corroborated by the fact that all details of the claim made were available with the Assessing Officer at the time of regular assessment proceedings. Mere rejection of claim made by the AO would not by itself lead to imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The explanation offered by the respondent was found to be reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act for short) in respect of assessment years 2000-01 and 2002-03. Thus, these two appeals. 2. The Revenue has urged following question of law for our consideration:- Whether on the facts of the case and in law, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... initiated and the Assessing Officer by order dated 29.3.2010 imposed penalty of ₹ 4.91 lacs. 5. In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ CIT(A) for short], by order dated 31.10.2012 refused to interfere with the order dated 29.3.2010 of the Assessing Officer imposing penalty on the respondent under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. On further appeal, the Tribunal held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that there was no suppression of facts and all particulars of its income were disclosed by the respondent in its regular assessment proceedings. Thus, merely disallowance of claim made by the Assessing Officer cannot by itself justify an imposition of penalty as held by the Apex Court in Reliance Petro Products Ltd (supra). 8. In the above view, the identical question as proposed in both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
