9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee. - TAX APPEAL NO. 877 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 25-7-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) 1. Revenue is in appeal against the judgement of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 19.12.2013 raising following question for our consideration: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is right in deleting the penalty of ₹ 1,24,21,048/- imposed u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act? 2. As can be seen from the question, the issue pertains to penalty of ₹ 1.24 crores (rounded off) imposed by the Assessing Officer under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the tax expert and report of the auditor in form 10CCB and also supported by various decisions of High Courts and Tribunals. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that there is no conscious/deliberate attempt to conceal any income on the part of the appellant. I also find that honourable Madras High Court had held in the case of Caplin Point Laboratories Ltd ., 293 ITR 524 that by rejection of assessee's claim by relying on different interpretation it could not be said that particulars of income have been concealed. The decision of Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. reported in 170 taxman 27 (Del) wherein it was held that there is no justification to levy penalty when the AO had not found particulars furnished by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by audit report and claim of netting of income u/s. 80IA and applicability of section 80IA(4) r.w.s. (5) being debatable issue, there being two views, no malafide intention can be attributed to the appellant. The bona fide of the appellant is further established by the fact that in the return of income though it has disclosed income of ₹ 1,98,28,045/- under the normal provisions of the Act, the appellant had voluntarily opted to pay higher amount of tax u/s. 115JB on the Book profit of ₹ 7,47,72,995/-. Hence, having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that it is not a fit case for levy of the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). Before parting it is pertinent to mention here that in the appellant' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. Following observations of the Tribunal may be noted: 31.1 While deciding the appeal of the assessee in AY 2005-06 above in this order, we have held that deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act is to be allowed to the assessee without reducing the notional brought forward losses for Ays 2003-04 2004-05 because section 80-IA of the Act was amended by the Finance Act, 1999 and, therefore, the losses of earlier years were not to be adjusted in view of the fact that the assessee has selected the present AY 2005-06 as initial assessment year. In view of our above finding in the quantum appeal of the assessee, the very basis for levy of penalty does not survive. Therefore, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
