TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 23
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2007-08. The sum and substance of the matter could be noticed in the following: The assessee is a co-operative society, engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities to its members and public in general. The assessee had earlier been claiming, and was being allowed, deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act for being eligible therefor. The assessee also claimed the similar deduction for the assessment year 2007-08, which has not been allowed by the Assessing Officer ['the AO'] due to change in law, whereby the assessee was rendered ineligible for this deduction. It appears that the assessee filed its original return for the assessment year 2007-08 on 30.10.2007, declaring total income at Rs.3,90,26,699 while claiming....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccurate particulars, which had not been the case here. The AO, however, rejected the contentions of the assessee and held that the assessee had intentionally claimed inadmissible deductions under Section 80P(2) to reduce the taxable income; and proceeded to impose the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.93,70,460. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur ['the CIT(A)'] was convinced that the claim of deduction by the assessee had not been that of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars; and in the given fact situation, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. The CIT(A) found the case of the assessee bona fide and, accordingly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eduction under section 80P and its withdrawal by way of filing the revised return was bona fide and does not fall in the category of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.93,70,500 levied under section 271(1)(c) is cancelled." The order aforesaid was questioned by the Revenue in ITA No.387/JU/2011 before the ITAT. The ITAT agreed with the observations and findings of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal by its impugned order dated 17.12.2012 while observing, inter alia, as under:- "6. Reverting to the facts of the case and after considering the rival submissions, we have found that this is not a fit case for levying penalty as in this case neither the assessee ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to reduce the taxable income by claiming inadmissible deduction tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the AO had rightly imposed the penalty in this case. In our view, the submissions of the Revenue fall short of making out a substantial question of law worth consideration. The assessee is a Co-operative Bank and had been entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act before the year in question and had been allowed such deduction. It is no doubt true that in the original return for the year in question, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) of the Act and in the revised return dated 13.12.2007, besides the above, the assessee also claimed deduction of Rs.3,07,37,988 ....