TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the point in issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by virtue of the order of ITAT Delhi Bench B New Delhi in assessee's own case ITA No. 531/D/2013 vide order dated 13.9.2013 for asstt. year 2007-08 whereby appeal of the revenue has been dismissed by upholding the order of the CIT(A). The Ld. AR has also placed a copy of order of the Tribunal (Supra) and further submitted that the CIT(A) was right in deleing the penalty which was wrongly imposed by the AO based on the retrospective amendment of the provisions of the Act. 4. The Ld. AR fairly accepted that the Tribunal in assessee's own case order vide dated 13.9.2013 (supra) has deleted and cancelled the penalty imposed by the AO. 5. On careful consideration of above submission we are of the considered view that on careful perusal of the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for asstt. year 2007-08 vide dated 13.9.2013 we fairly observe that the coordinate bench of the Tribunal has deleted the penalty by holding as under :- 3.2 It is seen that considering these arguments, the penalty imposed was quashed by the CIT(A) on the following reasoning:- "5.2. Decision I have considered the submission of the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bts in the book profit u/s 115JB has been deleted since the return of income was filed by the appellant before the introduction of amendment in section 115JB in 2009. Therefore, there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The relevant para of the decision is reproduced hereunder :- "We have carefully considered the submission and perused the records. We find that similar addition was levied in the hands of the assesee for asstt. year 2006-07 & 2007-08. For A.Y. 2007-08 Tribunal had noted that for A.Y. 2006-07 the matter had traveled to the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the deletion of penalty by observing as under :- "CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have deleted the said penalty observing that the position became clear when the retrospective amendment was made w.e.f. 1.4.2001 vide Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009. In the present case, the assesee had filed the return on income on 29.11.2006, which was revised on 31.3.2008. These are before the retrospective amendment in 2009. The assesee had relied on CIT vs. HCL Comnet Systems and Services Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 409 (SC) and submitted that no adjustment was required to be made for provision f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty on the same line with following observations and findings :- "On perusal of the assessment order, as well as the penalty order, it is noticed that it is not the case of the assessing officer that the appellant had furnished any wrong/incorrect fact and /or concealed any material fact. In fact, it si noticed that the assessing officer, in the assessment order, had made the addition by applying clause(c) of Explanation No. 1 to section 115JB of the I.T. Act, which is not at all sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. HCL Comnet and Services Ltd. 305 ITR 409 and also the jurisdictional Delhi High Court in the appellant's own case for the assessment year 2002-03 reported in 329 ITR 289. It is also noticed that the retrospective amendment in clause (1) of Explanation 1 to section 115 JB of the I.T. Act was suo moto pointed out by the appellant during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A)-XIII, New Delhi. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the appellant had furnished any inaccurate particulars or concealed any material fact. There is difference of opinion between the AO and CIT(A) as to the clause under which addition is to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... all, in the following cases, it has been held that no penalty is leviable on legal issues involving bonafide dispute between the assesee and the revenue: CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P) Ltd. 332 ITR 158 (SC) CIT vs. Vamchampigons & Agro Produce: 284 ITR 408 (Del) CIT v. Bacardi Martini India Limited : 288 ITR 585 (Del) CIT vs. Vibros Organics Limited : 159 Taxman 567 206 CTR 582 (Del) CIT vs. Nath Brotehrs Exim International Limited : 288 ITR 670 (Del) CIT vs. International Audio Visual Co: 288 ITR 570 (Del) The aforesaid decisions are applicable in the appeal under consideration since in the present case, there is a bonafide dispute between the appellant and the Revenue on the addition of provision made while computing book profits. The appellant has also not furnished any inaccurate particulars or concealed any material fact. (d) I also find merit in the alternative contention of the Ld. A.R. for the appellant that since the very basis of addition was changed by the CIT(A) as the addition was confirmed by applying clause (1) of Explanation 1 to section 115 JB of the I.T. Act whereas addition was made by the assessing officer by applying clause (c) of the said section, ....