9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 746X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 5478Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 15-6-2022 - Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon ble President And Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Salil Kappor, Adv. And Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. For the Revenue : Shri N.C.Swain, CIT-DR ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The revenue has filed this appeal against the order dated 02.06.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Delhi deleting the penalty levied by the Assessing officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The facts in brief are that during the course of assessment proceeding, it was seen that the assessee had claimed depreciation of Rs.8,38,98,017. When the assessee was asked as to why rental income should not be added. The assessee submitted that the building is dilapidated and unsafe for occupation. Again when asked why depreciation should not be disallowed, the assessee submitted that the building was being used for business purposes for conducting meetings of Board of Directors. Ld AO observed that a meeting of Board of Directors cannot be held in a building which by the assessee s own submissions is unsafe to occupy . Ld AO held that it is very clear that the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty could be levied where the bonafide claim of the appellant has been disallowed by the assessing officer on difference of opinion based on legal position. Further the assessing officer, in the impugned order, has merely stated that if the case of the appellant would not have been selected for scrutiny, the facts would not have come to the notice of the department and the same would have escaped the eyes of the Department. The assessing officer relied on the decision of CIT v. Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd.: 327 ITR 51 (Del.).The facts in the case of Zoom Communications were completely different inasmuch as the claims, inter-alia, deduction of income tax paid/ equipment's written off made by the assessee were patently erroneous and had no footings to stand at all. The facts of that case cannot be compared with the present case. The said decision has also been dealt/ distinguished in the following case laws rendered by the jurisdictional Delhi High Court: -Karan Raghav Exports (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 349 ITR 112 -Kanchenjunga Advertising (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 340 ITR 595 - CIT v. Societex: 259 CTR 325 - CIT v. Kas Movie (P) Ltd.: 207 Taxman 183 - CIT v. Madhushr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings as each assessment year is a separate proceedings year? 6. Whether in facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not upholding the penalty u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act imposed by the Assessing Officer by ignoring the fact that the assessee had taken a chance by making a patently incorrect and unsubstantially claim and the decision of Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in case of CIT Vs Zoom communication Pvt. Limited (2010) 327 ITR 510, CIT vs NG Technologies Limited (2015)370 ITR 7, CIT Vs Escorts Finance Limited (2010) 328 ITR 44 and CIT Vs Harparshad and Company Limited (2010) 328 ITR 53? 7. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any ground/(s) of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal. 4. Heard and perused the record. 5. On behalf of the assessee in application under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Act (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 has been filed to submit that opportunity be given to support the Ld. CIT(A) on the following grounds :- 1. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, penalty initiated vide notice issued by the Assessing Officer under secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a finding in the assessment order that assessee company furnished inaccurate particulars and accordingly levied the penalty. 8. Giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record in regard to the grounds raised by the assessee by virtue of Rule 27 of the Rules of 1963 it can be observed the Ld. CIT(A) has tried to square up the claim of assessee on the basis that directions to initiate penalty proceedings in the assessment order is a sufficient compliance of recording of satisfaction in terms Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. However, what transpires from record is that in the assessment order, the Ld. AO had concluded the assessment order by following observations in para no. 9 :- 9. Assessed at Income of Rs. 3,74,62,030/-. Credit for prepaid taxes is given. Requisite documents are issued. Interest is charged u/s 234A, 234B, 234C 234D as per rules. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are hereby initiated for which notice u/s 274 is issued separately. 9. This makes it clear that there was no specific conclusion as to if there was concealment of income or submission of inaccurate income. At the same time in the body of ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
