9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 656X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,880/- to the plant and machinery being technical know-how fees treating the same as pre-operative expenses. AO however, on perusal of the details filed observed that Section 35AB was specific provision for allowability of expenditure on acquisition of know-how. Therefore, the deduction was required to be given by spreading it equal of six years. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has made the claim for payment of technical know-how under the bonafide belief that its claim for payment of third installment was also allowable as deduction on the same basis as in the previous year. Thus, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income in this case. See CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thus, Assessing Officer made the disallowance of Rs. 14,88,490/-. The addition in this regard was confirmed by the ITAT and subsequently by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court. 4. In the background of the above, Assessing Officer opined that provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act are attracted. Therefore, he held that assessee company was in default of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of its income and accordingly, he imposed the penalty of Rs. 6,69,820/-. 5. Upon assessee's appeal Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) deleted the penalty in this regard. 6. Against the above order the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the rival contentions in light of the material produced and precedent relied upon. We find th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be a good law because what was overruled in the Dharmender Textile case was only that part in Dilip Sheroff case where it was held that mensrea was a essential requirement of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that if the contention of the revenue is accepted then in case of every return where the claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite the penalty u/s 271(1)(c). This is clearly not the intendment of legislature. 7.2 We further place reliance from the Apex Court decision rendered by a larger Bench comprising of three of their Lordships in the case of Hindustan Steel vs. State of Orissa in 83 ITR 26 wherein it was held that "An order imposing penalty for failure to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
