9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n inaccurate claim tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars when none of the information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate. In the instant case, it was a mere case of difference of opinion taken by the AO. We are of the considered view that there is no perversity or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT (A), hence appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - ITA No. 369/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 13-8-2021 - SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ASSESSEE BY : Shri Anil Kathuria, Advocate REVENUE BY : Shri Bhoop Singh, Senior DR ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER : Appellant, Addl. CIT, Spl. Range 1, New Delhi (hereinafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. Undisputedly, the assessee is a public sector undertaking and maintaining 125 airports comprising 68 operational airports, 25 civil enclaves i.e. Civil Air Terminals at Defense controlled airports and 31 non-services at all civil airports in the country. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has claimed to have incurred expenditure of ₹ 5.41 crores as expenses on R D. It is also not in dispute that assessee has set up R D centre at Hyderabad during the year under assessment. AO treated the payment made for R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case. The appellant has disclosed its claim and has also revised it in its revised return filed well in time. Again, the fact that the appellant is a Government of India enterprise and in my view, the ratio as laid in CIT V. Senior Accounts Officer, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board [2005J 276 ITR 84 (MP)(supra)also squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Also, in Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. ITO [ITD 100, 029/ TTJ 107, 372, ITAT Nagpur (supra) relied upon by the appellant, it is held inter alia, There could be no personal gain to assessee as it is a Government company and therefore, allegation in the orders of Lower Authorities as to mala fide intention are not justified ... . Further, during the course of appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der referred to above. As the AR's submission at the appellate stage is borne out from records and is in sync with the extant law on the issue, I am in agreement with the arguments adduced by the appellant against the imposition of penalty u/s 271(1 )(c). Accordingly, with due deference to the decision of the Apex Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products Pvt. Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC) and in CIT vs. SSA'S Emerald Meadows (SC) [2016]73 taxmann.com 248 wherein SLP of the Department against the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka HC in CIT vs SSA's Emerald Meadows (ITA No. 380/2015) was dismissed vide its order dated 26.09.2016, the penalty (of ₹ 1,65,52,880/-) levied vide the impugned order is cancelled. 7. Perusal of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court rendered in case of CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565/218 Taxman 423/35 taxmann.com 250, allowed appeal of assessee holding that notice issued by Assessing Officer under section 274 read with section 271 (1 )(c) was bad in law, as it did not specify under which limb of section 271 (1 )(c) penalty proceedings had been initiated, i.e., whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income - High Court held that matter was covered by aforesaid decision of Division Bench and, therefore, there was no substantial question of law arising for determination - Whether since there was no merit in SLP filed by revenue, same was l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
