9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g grounds. 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and merit of the case in deleting the penalty of Rs.6,76,962/- imposed by the A.O. u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act. 2. The appellant craves to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 2. The relevant facts are that in the quantum proceedings the addition of Rs.18,50,000/- was made by the A.O. which was confirmed by the CIT(A) who did not accept the claim of the assessee that expenses/liability had not crystallized in the year under consideration. Penalty proceedings were initiated as a result of the addition made and after considering the arguments of the assessee namely that simply because addition/disallowances have been sustained in appeal this ipso facto would not lead to levy of penalty; that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings must be considered independently; that there is no prejudice caused to the Revenue if the amount is allowable in the next year. As such it was requested that the penalty proceedings be dropped. 3. However, not convinced, penalty to the extent of Rs.6,76,962/- was imposed o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts there is no dispute on the amount and it is a matter of fact on record wherein as a result of the Arbitration proceedings between the assessee and the other party finally an out of Court settlement took place and the liability crystallized as a result thereof in the year under consideration. It was urged that since the first sitting of the Arbitration Court in August, 2005 as such the arbitration order was passed on 13.8.05 which has been referred to at internal page 2 of the CIT(A) s order of the quantum proceedings. Copy of the same it was stated is placed at pages 27 to 29 of the paper book and specific page 28 para 4 was referred to. Inviting attention to paper book page 19 which is the order of the Arbitrator which refers to the fact that first sitting took place on 13.8.2005 as the arbitration order was dt. 13.8.05 which refers to the dispute M/s Coronation Projects P.Ltd. and M/s Excelcia Foods Ltd. Referring to the same it was submitted that it refers to the fact that the parties have amicably arrived at an out of court settlement. Accordingly it was his claim that the assessee had made a claim as per the fact that the out of Court settlement took place in the year under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 185 (All.). 9. At the time of dictation it was noticed that the documents to which attention was invited namely documents pertaining to Arbitration proceedings and out of Court settlement mention different names than that of the assessee in the present proceedings. Accordingly the case was re-fixed for clarification. It was pointed out that in the present proceedings the name of the assessee is M/s Speciality Foods India P.Ltd. (the Assessment Order makes a mention that formerly the assessee was known as M/s Nestle R D Centre India P.Ltd.). It is seen that as per the documents made available on record by the ld.A.R. who invited attention to Certificate of Incorporation placed at pages 1 of the supplementary paper book filed in the name mentioned is Excelcia Foods Ltd. as on 28.11.2006. Subsequently as per page 2 Excelcia Foods Ltd. name was changed to Nestle Purina Petcare India P.Ltd. as per Certificate enclosed dt. 2.3.2004. Thereafter as per supplementary paper book page 3 Nestle Purina Pet Care India Ltd. which was earlier known as Purina Petcare India Pvt. Ltd. as from 13.9.2004 and as per supplementary paper book page 4 from 2.2.2007 M/s Purina Petcare India P.Ltd. chang ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and has to be followed but in the present proceedings it has no relevance. The learned DR has further relied on M.Sajjanraj Nahar vs CIT 283 ITR 230 (Mad). A perusal of the proposition laid down therein shows that it has no relevant in the present proceedings. In the facts of the case the assessee had returned additional income by way of revised return. In regard thereto no explanation was offered in the penalty proceedings. AS such the penal action stood confirmed for want of explanation of the assessee. The said decision has no applicability herein as there is consistently explanation offered by the assessee both on facts and law before all the forums. 9.2 The assessee on the other hand has relied on Jayant Veg Oils and Chemcials P.Ltd. vs CIT 323 ITR 641 (Bom) wherein in the facts of the said case it was stated that there is a factually accepted position that the disallowance of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods was made by an order of the Court in March, 1980 and the assessee received the order in April, 1980 then when the assessee filed its letter the assessee knew that the fine in lieu of confiscation had been cancelled. Following the mercantile system the books en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
