9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of appeal. The Revenue has not raised any serious objection on delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing of appeal is not intentional. The reason given in application for delay in filing of appeal appears to be bonafide. Hence, 12 days delay in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. Ms. Kriti Bindal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the Assessing Officer (AO) has levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Explanation 1. The notice u/s. 271(1) r.w.s 274 of the Act dated 30.12.2016 was served on the assessee. A perusal of notice (at page no. 1 of the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total assessment years covered by section 10B of the Act were nine years i.e. from AY 2001-02 to 2009-10, if that be the case, the basic structure of law had anomaly as 10 years would never be completed from the start of unit till the date of sunset clause. Later on, deduction u/s. 10B of the Act was extended for AY 2011-12 by the Finance Act 2009. Since, there was ambiguity in the provision of the Act, two views were possible, i.e. any export oriented undertaking would be eligible for benefit u/s. 10B of the Act, if it starts operation between 01.04.2001 to 01.04.2010. Since, assessee's export oriented undertaking started operation on 08.05.2003, the assessee has taken one of the possible views and claimed deduction. In any case, entire co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )(c) of the Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars within meaning of Explanation 1 to Sub section (1) of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. At the outset it is observed that in assessment order the assessee has mentioned both charges of section 271(1)(c) of the Act with conjunction 'and' i.e. the Assessing Officer intended to levy penalty on both charges, whereas, in notice the AO has mentioned both charges with conjunction 'or' further in notice the Assessing Officer has invoked all explanations to section 271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. While indicating penalty the Assessing Officer intended to invoke only Explanation 1. The ambiguity in mentioning charge at the time initiation of penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
