9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1035X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... following substantial question of law:- "Whether the ITAT was right in law in upholding the decision of the CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied for assessment year 2006-07 who has relied upon the decision of ITAT Delhi in AT&T Communication Services India Pvt. Limited (42 DTR 22) and the decision relied upon by the Hon'ble ITAT is adequately countered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510?" 2. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the appeal may be noticed. The assessee company filed its return of income on 4.12.2006 declaring nil income. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessed under section 143(3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. Vide order dated 1.7.2013, Annexure A.5, the CIT(A) cancelled the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. The revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 19.5.2015, Annexure A.6, the Tribunal upheld the order passed by the CIT(A). Hence the instant appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The primary challenge in this appeal is to the cancellation of penalty on addition made on account of disallowance of expenditure under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The assessee had made a claim of deduction in the return of income. No finding has been recorded by the authorities below that the claim made by the assessee is malafide. It has been categorically recorded by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14 ITR 215 held as under:- "Held. Dismissing the appeal that the deduction claimed by the assessee was legitimate and bonafide in terms of the conflicting determination of law on the proposition in question. The categorical finding at the hands of the Tribunal in its order was that the assessee had disclosed the entire facts without having concealed any income. There was no allegation against the assessee that it had furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The determination of the Tribunal had not been controverted even in the grounds raised in the appeal. The assessee was guilty of neither of the two conditions. Therefore, in the absence of two pre-requisites postulated under section 271(1)(c) it was not open to the revenue to i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
