TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the circumstances, no penalty, thus, could be levied u/s 271(1)(c) - In favour of assessee - ITA No.893 of 2010 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 10-10-2012 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR. GURMEET SINGH SANDHAWALIA JJ. Present: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act ) against the order dated 23.4.2010, Annexure 6 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity the Tribunal ) in ITA No.1028/Chd/2009, for the assessment year 2004-05, claiming following substantial question of law:- Whether on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rs. 58,944/- on account of disallowance of Employees' contribution towards Provident Fund under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act. The excess claim of deduction under Sections 80IB and 80HHC of the Act was disallowed and the assessment was completed at net income of Rs. 50,05,765/- vide order dated 22.12.2006 under Section 143(3) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 28.9.2007, Annexure 2, the appeal was partly allowed. The finding of the Assessing Officer in disallowing deduction under Section 80IB of the Act on export incentive w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... econd appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 23.4.2010 Annexure 6, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The question for consideration in this appeal is regarding levy of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee in respect of the claim made under Section 80HHC of the Act. 5. The assessee had claimed deduction without reducing the profits in respect of deduction under Section 80-1A of the Act. It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the issue being debatable, there was no intentional furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
