TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of learned DR and perused the material placed before us. We find that learned CIT(A) discussed the factual as well as legal issue in detail and thereafter cancelled the penalty relying upon the decision of ITAT in assessee's own case and the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court dated 29th January, 2012 in the case of Ultimate Fashion Maker Ltd. in ITA No.69/2010 and Dharampal Premchand Ltd. - 11 Taxman.com 437 (Delhi). For ready reference, we reproduce below the finding of learned CIT(A):- "5.1 I have considered the submission of the appellant and observation of the Assessing Officer. In the assessment order Assessing Officer disallowed deduction u/s 80-IB on interest and incentives, duty draw back received and DEPB. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deduction has been claimed by the appellant, it is submitted by the appellant that it was a debatable issue and was subject matter of conflicting judgments of various High courts as well as Tribunals. Based on such judgments the appellant had claimed that it has not concealed any particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, no penalty can be levied on the claim made by the appellant. The appellant has further contended that merely because the appellant had claimed the deduction which was not acceptable to the revenue, that by itself would not attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The appellant has also contended that where two opinion are possible on a issue no penalty can be levied. The appellant has also conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see is deleted." The appellant has also relied upon the Delhi High court judgment in the case of CIT vs. Ultimate Fashion Maker Ltd. (ITA No.69/2010) dated 29th January 2010. The gist of judgment is given hereunder:- "The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant had disclosed all the primary and material facts and, therefore, it could not be said that the appellant had concealed his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant had filed explanation regarding its claim for deduction under section 80-IB of the said Act which, according to the Tribunal, could not be said to be a false claim. 3. More importantly, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the issue of clai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rate attempt on part of assessee to conceal particulars of income - Commissioner (Appeals) accepted assessee's explanation and set aside penalty order - Tribunal upheld order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) - Whether on facts, no substantial question of law arose from Tribunal's order - Held, yes." The facts of the appellant's case are identical with the facts of the above cited judicial pronouncements. Therefore, the ratio of the said judgments is squarely applicable to the case of appellant. In view of the above the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act levied by the Assessing Officer was not justified. Hence, the same is cancelled." 4. After considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both the sides, we do not find....