2016 (12) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 25.09.2014 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] agitating the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 1688994/- levied by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of income. The assessee was a sick company and was under BIFR. It was also submitted that the prior period expenditure was debited in the PandL Account as the same came to the notice of the company during the relevant previous year only. Moreover, the assessee had also offered the prior period income also in the return of income which has been accepted by the AO. The disallowance, if any, was to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fferent and distinguished proceedings. Merely because the AO had made certain disallowance in the assessment proceedings that itself would not be sufficient for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. He, relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of "CIT, Ludhiana vs. East Man International" (2014) 41 Taxman.com 239 observed that mere making .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X