TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /disallowance were made. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the submissions of the assessee and taking note of the fact that additions/disallowances were either deleted or set aside, he held that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee in making its claims and the penalty was levied on mere change of opinion and the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly deleted the penalty levied for all these three assessment years. AO levied penalty on the disallowance made u/s. 14A while computing income under normal provisions of the Act as well as under book profits computation. Penalty cannot attract simply when there is an addition/disallowance is made. There is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the Assessing Officer and in some instances since the Assessing Officer himself did not impose penalties on identical additions/disallowance made in earlier assessment years following the consistency rule the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the penalties. 3. Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. In the course of hearing the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted a chart showing the details of quantum additions/disallowance either deleted by the Tribunal or set aside to the Assessing Officer and also not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal held in favour of IL FS in AY 2004-05 [page 4, para 3.2] and in AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 [page 9, para 9]. Thereafter, AO allowed depreciation in AY 2004-05 vide order dated 31 December 2018. No penalty levied by AO in AYs 2003-04 and 2004- 05 on identical facts. No appeal filed by Department against CIT(A) order deleting penalty in AY 2002-03 on same issue. 3 1(c) 2 Deduction of lease equalization reserve page 9, para 5.2 page 9, para 5.2 page 6, para 5.2 Tribunal in AY 2004-05 [page 12, para 7.2] and in AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 [page 17, 18, para 24, 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, para 9.2 --- Tribunal in AYs 2005-06 to 2007-08 has held in favour of IL FS in respect of Tamil Nadu Road Development Company [page 31, para 53]. No penalty levied by AO in AYs 2004-05, 2005-06 on identical facts. Deduction under section 10(23G) of the Act reflected separately in computation of income filed alongwith return of income. 1(g) --- Disallowance under section 14A --- page 14, para 10.2 --- Supreme Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited held that merely because assessee's claim was not accepted by Revenue, that itself woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 14A of the Act under minimum alternate tax ('MAT'). IL FS taxable under normal provisions, hence no penalty leviable for disallowance under MAT. No penalty initiated by AO in AYs 2005-06 and 2007-08. 5. As could be seen from the above, most of the additions/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer were either deleted or set-aside by the Tribunal to the Assessing Officer. In some of the cases the Assessing Officer himself not initiated penalty proceedings in earlier assessment years where similar additions/disallowance were made. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the submissions of the assessee and taking note of the fact that additions/disallowances were either deleted or set aside, he held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
