9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n constructed, as required u/s.80IB(10). Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal for A.Yrs 2003-04 and 2004-05, we restore the issue to the file of the AO to follow the directions in the order of the Tribunal in AY 2003-04 - Matter restored back Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Assessee s claim of deduction was found to be not genuine in course of assessment proceeding and the claim of deduction was disallowed - CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO levying penalty at the maximum rate of 300% of tax sought to be evaded - HELD THAT:- We find that the quantum appeal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2003-04 by ITAT J Bench has set aside to the file of the AO and directions have been given by the Tribunal to the AO to be followe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deduction claimed u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act and the addition is confirmed. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before us and raised the following grounds: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO wherein the AO had not granted the benefit of deduction u/s. 80IB (10) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Without prejudice to the above, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in a) Giving his findings on surmises, conjectures suspicion, without bringing on record of cogent material in support of his action: and b) Ignoring the relevant material and considerations brought on record by the appellant. 3. It is submitted that in the fact and the circumstances of the case and in law, no such disallowance was called for. 5. We f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Building A 3191.45 Sq. meters Building B 2423.96 Sq. meters -------------------------- Total 5615.44 Sq. meters ================== In respect of the building C which is claimed by the assessee as a independent housing project , as per approved lay-out, the built up area is shown at 1391.60 sq. meters. In our opinion, there is no clear finding by both the authorities on this issue. We, therefore, considered it fit to restore this issue to the file of the A.O. for verifying whether the assessee fulfils one of the conditions regarding area of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee company has made its submission vide its authorized representative s letter dated 09.05.2007 which is duly considered. The main argument of the A/R is that disallowance made is technical in nature hence penalty should not be levied. The A/R of the assessee has also relied upon a number of case laws. However, none of the case laws relied upon by the A/R is relevant in this case as all the case laws relied upon were entirely on different fact. In the instance case it has been established beyond doubt the assessee has manipulated the facts just to claim deduction u/s.80IB(10) which is not only proved by the A.O. but also further confirmed by the CIT(A). In the case of CIT vs. Chemiequip Ltd. reported in 265ITR 265 (Bom.), it is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
