9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Addition/disallowance of loss on option premium allocated to the SEZ unit the co-ordinate Bench has remanded the matter back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. Therefore, when the particular addition has been restored back to the file of the learned Assessing Officer, the power of the learned Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings, if in set aside proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer is satisfied that there is concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income to initiate the penalty. However, at the present stage there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A). Hence, we uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that on the issue of restriction of deduction claimed by assessee u/s. 10AA, the decision of ITAT has been challenged by the department in High Court. (iii) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,86,97,054/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of the ITAT order dated 14.06.2019 without appreciating that the ITAT had restored the issue relating to the issue of allocation of loss option premium of Rs. 85,98,116/- to SEZ unit to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication and had not deleted the addition of Rs. 85,98,116/- made by the Assessing Officer. (iv) The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 55/- under Section 10A of the Act was deleted and further, the issue of allocation of loss towards option premium of Rs. 85,98,116/- to Cochin Unit was set aside to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. Based on the above order of the co-ordinate Bench, the learned CIT(A) held vide Para 6.6 to 6.8 as under:- 6.6 As evident from the above, it is pertinent to note that the penalty under consideration for concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) was levied on account of two additions. One, addition on account of estimated turnover of SEZ unit which was reduced from Rs. 13,69,95,563 to Rs. 5,92,02,308/- and second on the issue relating to allocation of loss of option premium of Rs. 85,98,116/- to SEZ unit. No penalty was levied o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Act of Rs. 7,77,93,255/- has been deleted by the co-ordinate Bench and therefore, merely preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court by the Revenue cannot be used as excuse for levy of the penalty. With respect to the second addition, it has been remanded back to the learned Assessing Officer and therefore, the penalty may be reinitiated by the learned Assessing Officer, if the addition is sustained. Therefore, there is no error in order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the penalty. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also perused the order of the co-ordinate Bench in the quantum proceedings. As the fact shows that penalty has been levied by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
