TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2011X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ADRAS HIGH COURT] the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) is deleted.- Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.2262/Chny/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) - - - Dated:- 6-2-2019 - SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate Respondent by : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -4, Chennai, dated 05.07.2018, confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. Departmental Representative also. According to the Ld. D.R., the assessee originally claimed exemption under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act with regard to donations said to be given to some of the institutions at Kolkata. Subsequently, the assessee filed revised return and the claim was withdrawn. According to the Ld. D.R., even though there was no addition in the revised return, the assessee had concealed its income in the original return from claiming exemption. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer. 4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claimed exemption under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to and relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory [reported in (2013) 359 ITR 565]. The Division Bench after analysing the subject in an elaborate manner and relating to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because the assessee agreed for addition and accordingly, assessment order was passed on the basis of addition and when the assessee paid the tax and the interest threof in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income, it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment, so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In another judgment of Madras High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
