9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at he made the claim in bona fide manner and all particulars relating thereto have been disclosed, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) shall not be leviable. In favour of assessee. - ITA NO. 4507 (DELHI) OF 2009 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2010 - SHRI G.E. VEERABHADRAPPA, AND SHRI C.L. SETHI, JJ. Represented By: Shri Tarandeep Singh for the Appellant. Shri Surender Pal for the Respondent. C.L. Sethi, Judicial Member - The assessee is in appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated September 24, 2009 confirming the penalty amounting to Rs. 4,90,800 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the assessment year 1996-97. 2. In this case, the penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat why the assessee has not provided interest as income incurred in current year. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made addition of Rs. 12.27 lakhs. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted this addition by saying that as per the court's order, the higher amount realised by the assessee was liable to be refunded and the assessee had to provide bank guarantee to the Government and interest amounting to Rs. 12.27 lakhs was provided as a liability. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, stated that since liability was provided as per the court's order, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 428 (SC) was applicable. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), therefore, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h subsequently happened in the present case. With regard to the controversy about the collection of levy sugar, the hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order dated September 20, 1993 where by the hon'ble Supreme Court directed for recomputation of levy sugar price and in the light of that direction the assessee added the provision of interest as income in the assessment years 1994-95 and 1995-96. However, subsequently, the Supreme Court passed another order dated February 20, 1996 wherein it was held that the interest on price realised was payable. The assessee, therefore, made a provision for interest payable and claimed the same as deduction in the assessment year 1996-97. Therefore, the assessee's conduct taking one particular view in one ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
