9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (9) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A) that the assessing officer has not established that the assessee furnished incorrect facts after placing reliance on the decision of CIT vs. Reliance Petro products Pvt. Ltd. [ 2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUPREME COURT] .- Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 347/Ahd/2017 - - - Dated:- 12-7-2019 - Shri Amarjit Sigh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member Revenue by: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R. Assessee by: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.R. ORDER PER: AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This revenue s appeal for A.Y. 2001-02, arises from order of the CIT(A)-IV, Ahmedabad dated 30-06-2003, in proceedings under section 143( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the act to the assessee to show cause as to why an order imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act may not be made. The assesssee has responded vide letter dated 23rd December, 2015 that initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law as no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that all the issues of addition/disallowance were made legal and debatable and there was not any wrong filing of particulars and concealment of income. The assessee has also referred various judicial pronouncements as reported in the assessment order by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and stated that income from sale of DEPB lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 2, the appellant has challenged imposition of penalty on the ground that Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment proceedings which is necessary even after insertion of section 271(16). On perusal of the assessment order, I find that the Assessing Officer in para-15 has every clearly mentioned that penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(c) was being issued on all the issues for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Authorized Signatory has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ms. Madhushree Gupta Vs. Union of India Anr [WP(C) No. 5059 of 2008] wherein Hon'ble High Court held that position regarding the recording of satisfac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt was delivered on 31.08.2009 while the Return of Income was filed on 31.10.2001. Thus, it is clear that at the time of filing of return the issue under consideration was highly debatable one. In various decisions relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative, it has been held that the penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) cannot be imposed in respect of additions made on debatable issues. A few of such decisions are as under:- a) Nalwa Sons Investments Ltd. 235 CTR 209 (Del.) b) Karan Raghav Export Exports Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 349 ITR 112 (Del.) c) Sivananda Steels Ltd. 256 ITR 683 (Mad.) In view of the above facts and legal position, thus I hold that no penalty is imposable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made in the book profit when the tax was charged under normal provisions. This argument is acceptable since addition made to the book profit u/s. 115JB has not affected the quantum of tax payable. Accordingly, I hold that no penalty is imposable on this account. 4.4. In respect of both the additions/disallowances being disallowance of deduction u/s. 80IA in respect of income from DEPB at ₹ 11,41,480/- and disallowance of losses deducted from book profit at ₹ 3,39,12,399/-, it has been also submitted that all the particulars were disclosed by the appellant and hence merely because the claim was disallowed, penalty cannot be imposed. Undisputedly, the Assessing Officer has not established that the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing officer and ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. During the course of appellate proceedings, the ld. counsel has also referred judicial pronouncements (2017) 82 taxman.com 74 (Chandigarh-Trib) ACIT vs. Torque Pharmaceutical (P.) Ltd. dated 19th May, 2015 and (2015) 145 taxman 303 (Guj) CIT vs. India Galetine Chemical Ltd dated 8th April, 2004. The ld. counsel has contended that assessee has disclosed all details in the return of income and there was no issue of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and he has supported the order of ld. CIT(A). On the other hand, the ld. D.R. has placed reliance on the order of assessing officer. 6. We have heard both the sides an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
