9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bly erred in levying penalty u/s. 270A(9) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on variegated pleas which order being contrary to facts and repugnant to law. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC, Delhi erred on facts and in law in not deleting the penalty imposed by the AO u/s. 270(9) of the Act on the allegation of mis-reporting of income and in directing the AO to impose penalty at 100% of the tax payable on alleged excess claim of ineligible expenditure u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. The above actions being arbitrary, fallacious, unwarranted and illegal must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief. 2. Briefly stated facts, are that assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of income declaring a net loss of Rs. 2,50,29,113/- under the normal scheme. Simultaneously, it also reported income of Rs. 14,07,69,338/- u/s. 115JB of the Act for the book profits and paid taxes on the same. It was further submitted that loss included claim for weighted deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act which was pruned by the DSIR. As to the difference between the claim made by the Assessee and allowed in assessment as per the DSIR mandate, the Assessment Unit (AU) penalised the assessee u/s. 270A(9) of the Act by way of imposing penalty of Rs. 1,09,39,526/- being 200% of tax payable for mis-reporting of income. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) reduced the penalty to 100% as against 200% imposed by the AU. In supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... para 5.2 has admitted that the assessee cannot be alleged of mis-reporting of income as it was not made with a bonafide or malafide intention. 4.1 Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and submitted that the same does not require any interference, hence, the same may be confirmed. 5. We have heard rival contentions and perused the relevant records. We find that in the instant case the penalty levied u/s. 270A(9) of the Act by the Assessing officer. It is noted that the AO imposed penalty with reference to the amount of deduction claimed u/s.35(2AB) of the Act. It is further noted from the assessment order that the assessee claimed deduction u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act of Rs. 19,73,52,248/- and in support of the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... expenditure has not been approved. Accordingly, it revised the claim of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act before the AO vide its mail dated 20.12.2019 during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) has himself observed that assessee has not claimed excessive deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act knowingly or deliberately. Rather, the claim of deduction made by the assessee is on the basis of tax audit report. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the contention of the assessee that excessive deduction claimed was due to a bonafide and inadvertent error cannot be disbelieved and dispelled. In fact, the DSIR has not only recognised the R&D facility of the assesee but also approved the expenditure incurred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
