9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S). 2. Brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of fertilizer. It filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 33,89,43,167/- on 29.10.2007. The assessee has claimed an expenditure of Rs. 9,94,63,000/- on account of payment made to employees under Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). According to the ld AO the above sum should have been deferred over the period of 5 years and 4/5th of the amount should have been added to the total income of the assessee and only 1/5th of such expenditure is allowable under the provisions of section 35DDA(1) of the Act. The assessee furnished details of salary etc. The ld AO for the reasons given for the Assessment Year 2004-05 hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entire particulars of the amount paid to the employees was disclosed in the return filed and details furnished at the time of assessment proceedings under section 143 (3) of the act. Therefore it was stated that penalty proceedings are not justified. The learned assessing officer considered the explanation of the assessee and held that explanation 1 of section 271 (1) (C) is clearly applicable in this case. He further held that the claim of the deduction of the hundred percent of voluntary separation scheme expenses of the assessee is not only without any basis and explanation furnished by the assessee company is devoid of any merit. He further added that it is not found to be bona fide. He therefore held that the any amount disallowed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble one on which more than 2 opinions are possible. Therefore he deleted penalty on these additions. The part of the penalty with respect to the prior period expenditure which is not in dispute before us has been confirmed by the learned CIT - A. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT - A the revenue is in appeal contesting that the learned CIT - A has erroneously deleted the penalty of INR 2 4513669/- on account of payment made to employees under voluntary separation scheme. 4. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and stated that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and has made a wrong claim of deduction and therefore the penalty has been rightl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 6. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. In this case though in the impugned assessment year the coordinate bench has upheld the addition however for assessment year 2004 - 05 and for assessment year 2006 - 07 , 2007 - 08 and 2008 - 09 the coordinate bench has deleted the identical addition in favour of the assessee. Therefore, it is apparent that there are 2 views on the allowability of the above sum on which penalty has been levied. We also noted that the learned assessing officer is also not sure whether the penalty is levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. In view of the appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
