TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 604
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had deliberately claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of Rs. 35,37,102/- despite the fact that it was undoubtedly not an SSI Unit and hence not eligible for deduction under section 80IB of the Act as detected and held by the Assessing Officer and endorsed both by the CIT (Appeals) as well as the ITAT itself? (B) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT is justified in deleting the penalty u/s.27(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, without appreciating the fact that the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....own by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication (P) Ltd. (2010) 191 Taxman 179 (Delhi) is fully applicable to the facts of the assessee's case?" 2) We have heard the learned senior standing counsel Mr. K. M. Parikh for the Department who was taken use through the entire gamut of facts. 3) The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of hot dip galvanizing and fabrication of steel items. The assessee had an SSI manufacturing unit with effect from 1st February, 1996 at Makarpura where the deduction under section 80IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter "the I.T. Act") had been granted. Another unit was set up at Manglej for which the assessee had claimed deduction un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he claim of the respondent-assessee that the new unit was an SSI unit was not found to be valid and the alternative claim made by the respondent-assessee was also held to be invalid by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the old unit was working throughout the construction period of Manglej unit. Such Manglej unit was also registered as Unit No.2 before the DIC in its DIC certificate and, therefore, the unit at Manglej was reconstruction of the old unit at Makarpura. And, accordingly, it confirmed the findings of the CIT (Appeals) as also of the Assessing Officer of disallowing the claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act. 5) In respect of the penalty proceedings, both the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tune of 2.23 lakhs (rounded off) was based on inaccurate particulars and it was a deliberate act on the part of the assessee to have made such claim despite being aware of the decision of the Apex Court on such an issue. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Methur Chemical & Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 217 ITR 768 and Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal v. Orient Paper Mills Ltd., 176 ITR 110 for the proposition that the certificate of DIC where the assessee had registered itself as the Industrial Unit No.2. We notice that in the decision of the Apex Court, concerning the new industrial undertaking on Orient Paper Mills Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court followed the decision rendered in the case of T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ery time, when the question comes up of levy of the penalty, the same shall have to be recorded essentially on the basis of the facts whether in fact there was any concealment of income or there was any inaccurate particulars of income. 9) In the instant case, there appears to be neither. The Tribunal has rightly held that all the relevant material facts have been duly disclosed and, therefore, attraction of the provisions of section 271(1)(c) was not justifiable. It further can be noticed from the factual details that on the basis of the advise given by the chartered accountant, such claim had been made by the assessee. This court, in the case of Bix Chemical P. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 288 ITR 196, had an occasion to deal wi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany on account of loss and damage to its plant and machinery at replacement cost basis, and since the assessee had a bonafide belief on the basis of the advise received from it chartered accountant that loss occurred on the destruction of its plant and machinery, buildings, electric installments etc. was of revenue in nature and claim was made of total deduction of such amount. The same could not said to be a case of concealment within the ambit and scope of section 271(1)(c). The court, therefore, no penalty could be levied. 13) In the instant case, we notice that the assessee in respect of the reconstruction of the old Makarpura Unit, had made a claim under section 80IB of the Act. It was an alternative claim made by the assessee. The....