TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 851X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... involved in this case qua disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P , penalty cannot be levied. When substantial question of law has been arisen in this particular case to be decided by the Hon ble Apex Court in the SLP filed by the assessee challenging the order passed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, provisions contained u/s 271(1)(c) by applying Totgar s Cooperative Sale Society s case [ 2010 (2) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] are not attracted because issue in question is still debatable. Special leave to appeal is granted by Hon ble Apex Court in rarest of rare case as in the ordinary circumstances assessee has no right to appeal. So, we are of the considered view that when issue as to the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P is pending adjudication before the Hon ble Apex Court, the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability for concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income u/s 27(1)(c) Thus when issue as to deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 80P has not yet attained finality being pending adjudication before the Hon ble Apex Court, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) on account of disallowance of deduction clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act on interest income earned from fixed deposits with Banks, warranting imposition of penalty under section 271 (l)(c) of the Act. 2.1 That on, the CIT(A) erred on the facts and in law in not appreciating that all material facts/ particulars relating to aforesaid claim were truly, fully and accurately furnished and disclosed by the appellant in the return of income and accompanying documents, as also during the course of the assessment proceedings. 2.2 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the appellate had furnished inaccurate particulars in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society: 322 ITR 383 wherein the interest income derived from deposits made in scheduled banks have been treated as income from other source . 2.3 That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in failing to appreciate that the disallowance of deduction made under section 80P of the Act, made in the quantum proceedings was debatable in nature and predicted on bonafide difference of opinion between the appellant and the assessing officer. 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , disallowance of deduction claimed does not attract the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act; that Totgar s Cooperative Sale Society 322 ITR 283 case relied upon by the AO for levying penalty is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and relied upon the decisions cited as Guttigedarara Credit Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. CIT 377 ITR 464 (Kar) , CIT vs. Shree Siddeshwar Souhardhana Sahakari Niyamit ITA No.5019/2012 (Kar.), Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Cooperative Ltd. vs. CIT 230 taxman 309 (Kar.), ITO vs. Vidarbha Premier Cooperative Housing Society 184 TTJ 145 (Nag ITAT), CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. 329 ITR 483 (Del.), CIT vs. Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 327 ITR 543 (Del.), CIT vs. Deban International Ltd. ITA No.496 of 2009, ACIT vs. Delhi International Airport (P.) Ltd. (2018) 89 taxmann.com 326 (Delhi Trib.), Ganesh Land Organisation vs. CIT 168 ITR 527, CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158, PCIT vs. Samtel Ltd. ITA No.43 of 2017 CIT vs. Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 . 7. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue in order to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee relied upo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the question is debatable. 11. Hon ble Delhi High Court in case cited as CIT vs. Devsons Logistics (P) Ltd. (supra) held that :- (v) that divergent views amongst Departmental authorities in respect of both the additions positively indicated that it would be unsafe to infer that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof. 12. Hon ble Delhi High Court further held with the caveat of course is that the assessee must have placed all his cards on the table by disclosing each and every fact to the Departmental authorities or the court concerned. If the assessee does so then merely because the Departmental authorities concerned or the High Court concerned does not concur with the legal stand adopted by the assessee, that will not be reason enough to hold that the assessee is guilty of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate details. 13. But, in the instant case, the assessee is on more sound footing because the order passed by the Hon ble High Court qua disallowance of deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act has been challenged by way of filing SLP i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
