9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 108X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, as in the present case the AO has not strike of the inappropriate charge, we delete the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A). We direct the AO accordingly. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No.: 1564/CHNY/2018 - - - Dated:- 31-3-2022 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Dr. M.L. Meena, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT ORDER PER BENCH: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Chennai in ITA No.208/2016-17/A.Y.2011-12/CIT(A)-4 dated 14.08.2017. The assessment was framed by the ITO, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... overed in favour of assessee by the decision of ITAT, Chennai Benches in the following cases:- 1. Original Kerala Jewellers vs. DCIT, ITA No.2987/Chny/2017 2. R. Pannerselvam vs. ACIT in ITA No.789/Chny/2018 3. M/s. Prakash Homes vs. ITO in ITA No.2262/Chny/2018 4. Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case CIT vs. Khimji Bhanjee Co, 32 CTR 296. 4. On the other hand, the ld. Senior DR stated that the issue is covered by the Jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd., [2021] 276 Taxman 356, wherein the Hon ble High Court has considered the relevant in para 10 as under:- 10. The SLP filed by the assessee against the above decision was dismissed, Sundaram Finance Ltd. (supra). Further, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee agreed for addition and accordingly, assessment order was passed on the basis of addition and when the assessee paid the tax and the interest thereof in the absence of any material on record to show the concealment of income, it cannot be inferred that the said addition is on account of concealment, so as to levy penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. We find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal especially when it is admitted that the decision in C.I.T. Vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory has attained finality. Thus, for the above reasons, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the substantial questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 5.1 The ld.counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., cannot be applied. 5.2 The ld.counsel stated that this issue is squarely covered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. 6. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, we noted that the Hon ble Madras High Court in its latest decision in the case of Babuji Jacob, supra, has categorically held that there is no basis for issuance of notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, where both limbs in the said provision do not get attracted. The Hon ble Madras High Court has distinguished its own decision of Sundaram Finance Ltd., supra, and validity of notice issued u/s.271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act was decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the same, as in the present case the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
