9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that:- As rightly considered by the learned CIT (A) Just because an addition was confirmed in assessment, that itself does not lead to levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd [2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT]. The Revenue is contesting only on legal principles. Even though the legal principle relied on by the learned CIT (A) was no longer valid consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. [008 (8) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] that even in loss cases penalty is leviable as Explanation 4 will apply, the CIT (A) deleted the penalty also on merits which was not contested. Thus, the findings of the CIT (A) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) Disallowance out of provisions Rs. 37,559 v) Disallowance on a/c of higher depreciation Rs. 10,000 Total Rs.21,85,384 As a result of thereof of confirmation of addition by the CIT (A) vide his order dated 6.8.2004, AO levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, after taking note of assessee's submission dated 6.8.2006 which has been integrated in Para 1.2 of the penalty order dated 20.02.2006. AO held that assessee's case is liable for levy of penalty in view of Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, AO levied the said penalty. AO also took note of the decision of various Courts in support of his contention in Para 2 and 3 of the penalty or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts of the payment of interest was disclosed by the appellant company in its return of income and also in the audit report. Besides this, it is also a fact on record that the aforesaid sum of interest was paid by the appellant company for the purpose of business of the appellant company for acquiring office spare in Jolly Maker Chamber-II, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 taken from M/s Concast India Ltd. In addition to this, it is a fact on record that in respect of aforesaid addition, the appellant company's returned loss still remains a loss even after making the aforesaid addition as well as several other additions of small sums as has been enumerated by AO in the assessment order. After taking note of appellant AR's submission and also tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1(1)(c) as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Ltd 322 ITR 158(SC). As seen from the ground, the Revenue is contesting only on legal principles. Even though the legal principle relied on by the learned CIT (A) was no longer valid consequent to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Gold Coin Health Food (P) Ltd. 304 ITR 308 (SC) that even in loss cases penalty is leviable as Explanation 4 will apply, the CIT (A) deleted the penalty also on merits which was not contested. Therefore, the ground is more of an academic nature. We uphold the findings of the CIT (A) "I am of the considered view that the appellant company has not concealed any particulars of its income intentionally to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
