9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 292X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is pending for decision before Hon'ble High Court till disposal of such appeal bona fide in claiming deduction u/s. 80P of the Act cannot be ruled out and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be sustained and only on this count penalty deserves to be deleted. Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 725/Ind/2017 - - - Dated:- 7-1-2021 - JUSTICE P.P. BHATT, HON'BLE PRESIDENT AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, Sr.DR Appellant by Shri Anil Khabya, CA ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short Ld.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laiming deduction u/s 80P of the Act. Ld. A.O completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act on 20.12.2011 after disallowing the deduction u/s 80P of the Act. The disallowance was upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-2, Bhopal. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated by Ld. A.O. Reply filed by the appellant in response to show cause notice could not satisfy Ld. A.O and he imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 1.80 crores for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and succeeded as Ld. CIT (A) deleted the penalty observing as follows:- 7. The facts of the case in present appeal are identical to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.08.2017 wherein the Tribunal has held that since the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court has admitted the appeal of the assessee on the similar issue of levy of penalty on disallowance of deduction u/s 80P of the Act as substantial question of law for Assessment Year 2007-08 and 2008- 09, penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act deserves to the deleted . 6. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued supported the order of Ld. A.O but could not controvert the submission made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. 7. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Revenue s sole grievance is against the deletion of penalty at ₹ 1,80,00,000/- by Ld. CIT(A) which was levied by Ld. A.O u/s 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd disallowance was upheld by the Tribunal. 5.The Ld. CIT-DR finally submitted that ld. CIT(A) has granted relief without any basis, therefore, impugned order may be set aside by restoring penalty order of the AO. 6. Placing to the above, strongly supporting first appellate order, the Assessee s Representative (AR) submitted that the provisions of part section V of Banking Regulation Act are not applicable to the present assessee as the appellant is not covered under the definition of Cooperative Banks and hence provisions of Section 80P(4) excluding the benefit of Section 80P of the Act only to certain Cooperative Bank and is not applicable to the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee is entitled to claim benefit o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f declaration made by the appellant-assessee u/s 158A(1) of the Act to avoid repetitive appeals on the identical question of law which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court for the earlier years. Thus, it is discernable that on the issue of eligible of deduction u/s 80P of the Act for A.Y. 2007- 08 is pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh wherein substantial question of law has been framed. For present A.Y. 2011-12 the Tribunal has passed an order dismissing the appeal of the assessee u/s 158A(1) of the Act by following it earlier year for A.Y. 2007-08 dated 18.06.2012. Therefore, we have inclined to hold that as per ratio of the judgment of jurisdictional High court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Pr. CIT vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
