TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, is now squarely covered by the recent decisions of Apex Court in CIT vs Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd.(2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT). CIT(A) order of cancelling the penalty is upheld - Decided in favor of assessee. - I.T.A. NO. 7103/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 29-6-2012 - SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JJ. Appellant by : Mr. A.K. Mod. (CIT DR) Respondent by : Mr. Milin Thakore. O R D E R Per VIVEK VARMA, JM: The appeal is filed by the department against the order of the CIT(A) I, Mumbai, dated 29-06-2010, cancelling the levy of penalty of Rs. 13,05,660/-,under section 271(1)(c). 3. The facts as culled out from the orders of the revenue authorities are that, The assessee is engaged in the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant. The appellant thereafter preferred appeal before the Hon ble tribunal. Vide its order dated April 28, 2008 the Hon ble tribunal dismissed appellant s appeal on the basis of decision of the Apex Court in case of IPCA Laboratories (266 ITR 521) . 4. The AO, after the above sequence of events went on to levy the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), holding that the assessee had not been able to substantiate the explanation offered by it before the AO . 5. The assessee then preferred appeal before the CIT(A), praying that mere disallowance of deduction u/s 80HHC does not call for the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) and made detailed submissions, which are extracted hereunder: In this regard the Appellant submits as under :- The Ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en by the Income Tax Officer, it would not call for any penalty. 2 CIT vs Calcutta Credit Corporation (166 ITR 29) (Cal). It was held that no case of levy of penalty can be made where two options are possible on same facts. 6. The CIT(A), going through the sequence of events and the detailed submissions made by the assessee, cancelled the penalty, holding that penalty cannot be levied on the issue which is highly debatable or involves question of law, the CIT(A) also took into consideration that the main reason for the levy of penalty, being the decision of IPCA Laboratories v/s CIT was passed much later than the filing of the return. The CIT(A), therefore, held that it would not be correct to hold the appellant of furnishing inaccurate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) VIII, Mumbai ( the CIT(A) ). The CIT(A) deleted certain disallowance and upheld certain others. The Appellant being aggrieved in respect of the upholding the disallowance made by the AO preferred appeal before the Hon ble tribunal. The Hon ble tribunal vide its order dated February 19, 2008 upheld certain disallowance. Thereafter the assessment in assessee s case was reopened. The assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) r w s 147 of the Act on August 29, 2003 and in the said order the deduction u/s 80HHC of Rs. 37,30,456/- allowed in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act, dated February 5, 2001, was disallowed. In the assessment order u/s 143(3) r w s 147 of the Act, the assessing officer had initiated the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
