9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M P Rustogi, Mr Deepak Malik Mr K N Ahuja, Advs. JUDGEMENT Per: S Ravindra Bhat: 1. The Revenue claims to be aggrieved by the order of the ITAT in ITA No.3735/DEL/2010 dated 22.10.2010. 2. The facts in this case are not in dispute. The assessment in the case was completed on 23.12.2005 when a loss of Rs.2,30,53,433/- was claimed. The assessee had claimed deduction under Section 80HHC to the extent of Rs.1,32,88,262/-. This amount was disallowed and the assessee lost its case on merit before the CIT (A) as well as Tribunal. In this backdrop, the Revenue initiated proceedings under Section 271 (1) (c) contending that penalty was justifiably leviable. The CIT (A) allowed the assessee s appeal against the order of AO. The Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either between the different Benches of the Tribunal or the High Courts, which is finally settled by the pending judgment of the Supreme Court and all the necessary facts have been disclosed by the assessee in its return, proceedings under Section-271D would not be warranted. This was so held in Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-IV v. I.P. India (P.) Ltd. [2012] 204 TAXMAN 368 in the following terms: - 8. On a careful consideration of the matter, we find that the AO has relied on the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court (supra) and referred the issue of levying penalty to the Additional CIT. He did not examine whether the share application monies can be treated as loan or deposit within the meaning of Section 269SS. The Additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the receipt of share application monies from the three private limited companies for allotment of shares in the assessee-company cannot be treated as receipt of loan or deposit. In any case, the Tribunal has rightly noticed the cleavage of judicial opinion on the point and held that in that situation there was reasonable cause u/s.273B, applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vegetable Products (supra). 4. In the present case too as noticed by the Tribunal all the foundational facts which ultimately led to the disallowance were revealed by the assessee in the return. Furthermore, interpretation which ultimately prevailed was pronounced upon by the Supreme Court in the decision reported as IPCA Laboratories v. DCIT, 266 ITR 521 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
