9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM: This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 12.12.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The grievance of the revenue read as under : 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the penalty imposed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 against addition/ disallowance of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de ground No.2 of the appeal and held as under :- "23. Before us, Revenue has not pointed to any distinguishing feature in the facts of the case in the year under consideration and that of the earlier years. Revenue has also not placed any material on record to demonstrate that the order of Tribunal in assessee's own case for A.Y. 2010-11 & 2014-15 has been stayed/set aside/overruled by higher j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cs. The assessee could not revise the claim because the period for filing the revised return of income had elapsed. While scrutinizing the return of income and on the basis of the approval by DSIR the AO allowed the claim of deduction at Rs. 631.42 lacs and disallowed excess claim of Rs. 15238000/-. Penalty proceedings were separately initiated u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 7. We find that during t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld not be revised accepted the disallowance made by the AO by not contesting the same in the appeal. Ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products 322 ITR 158 squarely apply. 10. Respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench (supra) in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) we do not find any error or infirmity in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
