9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment at the time of filing of the return itself. The conduct of the assessee in this case was bonafide. In these facts of the case, we are of the view that it is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiated penalty proceedings and passed penalty order with respect to disallowance of ₹ 25173015/- sustained. The various expenditure on which the penalty is initiated and levied are as under:- Disallowed renovation/ additional construction expenses amounting to ₹ 186745/- Decision by the Hon'ble ITAT against the appellant in IT Appeal No. 511/Del/2011 (AY 2007-08) dated 20.04.2012 (page 17-20) Disallowed foreign travelling expenses amounting to ₹ 1964672/- Decided by the CIT(A)-VI, new Delhi in favour of the assessee in quantum appeal in Appeal No. 306/096-10 dated 08.12.2010 (page 06-08) Disallowed additional deprecation amounting to ₹ 3570062/- claimed by the assessee The matter has been restored back to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the ITAT, the disallowance was confirmed as raw material purchased and labour expenditure incurred shows that it was not the change in the identity of the existing asset but it is the new asset coming into existence therefore penalty was levied. The ld CIT(A) also confirmed penalty on same relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court UOI Vs. Dharmendra Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (S.C.). Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The ld AR submitted that in the case of the assessee for AY 2006-07 in identical circumstances penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO is deleted by coordinate bench in ITA No. 1981/Del/2013 dated 04.03.2015, therefore the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. 8. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has allowed deduction of Guarantee Commission paid to the Directors and their remain no basis for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on this issue and the same is accordingly cancelled. With regard to the other two items of disallowance of Repair and Maintenance Expenses and disallowance out of Foreign Travelling Expenses, we find that part of disallowance has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. However, the disallowance was made on the basis of information and facts made available to the AO by the assessee itself. The fact that assessee has in fact spent the amounts in question, is not in doubt. Moreover, it is a clear case of difference of opinion with regard to the allowability of certain claim of expenditur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een no business activity during the year or in the subsequent year and as such the asset cannot be said to have put to use during the period. ii. The case laws relied by the assessee including Bharat Alunimum co. Ltd., Ganga Properties Ltd are not applicable, as these cases, the assets which were not put to business use were part of block of assets which in the case under consideration, the whole block itself has not been put to business use." 13. We find that in these grounds there is no challenge to the deletion of the penalty by the ld CIT(A) on various additions. On query by the bench to the ld DR he could not justify the grounds raised before us in this appeal. However, in the interest of justice as the penalty deleted by the ld C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
