9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; 19,47,164/- for A.Y. 2005-06 and ₹ 16,61,790/- for A.Y. 2006-07, which was imposed on account of disallowance made under Section 35(2AB) of IT Act. 2. From the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R. Mr. O.P. Batheja, appeared and stated that during the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2004-05, it was noted by the AO that the assessee had claimed a deduction under Section 35(2AB) of ₹ 55,98,155/- i.e., 1.50 times of ₹ 37,32,103/-. The assessee had incurred expenditure on Scientific Research and Development, therefore, claimed the said deduction. The assessee was asked to produce the required Form No.3 CM to be issued by Secretary, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Instead of that certifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... income and also concealed the income, therefore, initiated the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c). It was reiterated that the claim of deduction under Section 35(2AB) was not made as prescribed under law and the assessee had not fulfilled the requirement, therefore, the claim was wrongly made by furnishing inaccurate particulars. Therefore, learned DR has pleaded that the AO had raised certain inquires and when the assessee had no explanation then only withdrawn the claim. He has argued that if the assessee s case was not selected for scrutiny then the assessee would have been benefited by filing inaccurate particulars of income. It was a deliberate attempt to take the chance with the Department, hence, the penalty was rightly imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Del), it was held that withdrawal of claim of deduction by filing revised return or disallowance of an expenditure due to difference of opinion did not amount to concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. We have further noted that learned CIT(A) has placed reliance in the case of CIT Vs. Beta Nepthol Ltd. 272 ITR 323 (MP) for the legal proposition that where the assessee had surrendered the disputed items and paid tax thereon then it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. Resultantly, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially when the assessee had made the impugned claim on the certificates which were furnished but not found to be false or incorrect, however, under bona fide impre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
