TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 849X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evenue arising from the order of ld.CIT(A)-XV Ahmedabad dated 01/08/2012. Revenue is aggrieved by the deletion of penalty of ₹ 13,85,546/- which was levied u/s.271(1)(c) of IT Act. 2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding penalty order passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated 8/11/2011 and the assessment order passed u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 15/11/2010 were that the assesseeind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... legal preposition that asstt.and penalty proceedings are two different and distinct proceedings and it is not in all the cases of disallowance and additions penalty is attracted. The A.O., has not appreciated the explanation of the appellant in the penalty proceedings and simply emphasized the Ld.CIT(A) order confirming the additions made u/s.40(a)(ia) of the Act. Even the fact that in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act is on account of deeming fiction and penalty on such disallowance is not attracted. It is therefore following the ratios of all thee case laws and considering the facts with reason as discussed, the penalty imposed on appellant is not justified and not sustainable in law. The A.O. is therefore directed to delete the penalty so imposed. The appellant gets relief accordingly. In refere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e issue of disallowance u/s.40(a)(ia) in respect of the transporters as it had emerged from the present case was a contentious issue subject to diversified opinion. We have also noted that the ld.CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.Ltd. 322 ITR 158(SC) for the legal proposition that merely on account of disallowance of an expenditure the penalty should not be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
