TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (9) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue submitted that the Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing the revenue's appeal whereby the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 6,25,000/- imposed by the Assessing Officer (in short, "AO") had been deleted. 3. In the present case, we find that the Tribunal has given cogent reasons for setting aside the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant portion of the impugned order of the Tribunal is reproduced hereinbelow:- "7. Now, coming to the first item, regarding imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.1,03,684/-under the production sharing the contract, we find that it remained undisputed that the expenditur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble under section 43B of the Act was not added back in the return of income for the relevant previous year as the tax audit report pertaining to the accounts of consortium was not available with the assessee before the date of filing of the return income by the assessee. This fact remained uncontroverted before us. Further, according to learned AR, the assessee was, therefore, unaware of the disallowance, if any, under Section 43B of the Act. Hence, in our opinion in the facts and circumstances, there was no deliberate attempt on the part of the assessee to either conceal the particulars of income or furnish inaccurate particulars thereof and the penalty on this item was no leviable. Consequently, the orders of tax authorities below in this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 12. The issue whether such disallowable item of interest under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 calls for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. M/s. HCL Technologies etc. and ITAT, "C" Bench, Delhi vide a consolidated order dated 31st March, 2009 passed in ITA No.1445/Del/2008 assessment year 1998-99, ITA No.1320/Del/2008 assessment year 2003-04 and ITA No.1446/Del/2008 assessment year 2003-04 while considering a number of disallowable item under section 10A for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in which one of the temps also was disallowance of interest received on FDRs under section 10A, held ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the disallowable interest amounting to Rs.1,67,822/- under section 10A of the Income Tax Act, 1961…….. xxx xxx xxx 15. The issue whether disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Explanation 73 of the Act towards fall in value of shares held in stock in trade calls for penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 came up for consideration before ITAT, Delhi "H" Bench, in DCIT Vs. Artic Investment (P) Ltd. and Tribunal vide order dated 11th April, 2008 passed in ITA No.194/Del/2007 decided the issue in favour of the assessee and cancelled the impugned penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer while observing in para 7 & 8 of the order as under:- "7. We have considered the rival submission and also perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... been answered by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in its judgment in the case of Auric Investments & Securities Ltd. (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the assessee wherein it was held that mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the AO does not automatically justify inference of concealment of the income justifying imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961……………." 16. ………… In this view of the matter and respectfully following the decision (supra) of the Bench, it is held that the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on this count on a sum of Rs.16,77,065/- was not leviable and, there....