9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the impugned order, the learned ITAT has allowed the appeal of the respondent and set aside the demand of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 26.11.2013 as subsequently upheld by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') vide order dated 13.03.2015. 3. It is the case of the appellant that the respondent is a wholly owned subsidiary of Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh (hereinafter referred to as 'G&D GmbH'). During the Assessment Year 2007-08 (hereinafter referred to as 'relevant AY') , the appellant was engaged in the business of wholesale trading of currency verification and processing systems ('CVPS'), their maintenance and providing SIM card systems to telecommunication operator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Fifty Four Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Seventy One) on the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal challenging the above order, which was dismissed by the learned CIT(A) vide order dated 13.03.2015. 7. The respondent challenged the said order before the learned ITAT, which appeal now stands allowed by the impugned order. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of Rule 10B(4) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'), no contrary view on the issue of use of single-year data was available to the respondent. This itself shows lack of bona fide on part of the respondent, making it liable to levy of penalty. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the TP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AY in question, the issue was debatable cannot, in the circumstances, said to be an implausible view." 12. The learned ITAT in its impugned order further records that the other reason for making the adjustments in the relevant AY was the denial of the capacity utilization claimed by the respondent. It has held that difference in the level of capacity utilization is an accepted principle, though denied in the relevant AY to the respondent. The same cannot, however, tantamount to filing without good faith and due diligence. 13. We do not find any infirmity in the above observation of the learned ITAT. As held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., (2010) 11 SCC 762, for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
