TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the penalty of Rs. 9,16,120 levied by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. That penalty under section 271(1)(c) has been confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) against the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by us has not been considered properly. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in not considering that all the particulars regarding claim of deduction under section 80-IC were filed and nothing was concealed and no inac curate particulars were filed. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....per se cannot mean that the assessee has furnished incorrect particulars of its income. (i) Asst. CIT v. Modern Coal Company [2006] 103 TTJ (Amritsar) 726 (ii) CIT v. Bhoj Raj and Co. [2001] 247 ITR 696 (P&H) (iii) CIT v. Ajaib Singh and Co. [2002] 253 ITR 630 (P&H) (iv) CIT v. Chetan Dass Lachhman Dass [1995] 214 ITR 726 (Delhi) and (v) Harijan Co-op. Society Ltd. v. Assessing Officer [2007] 34 I.T. Rep 549. Thus in view of the above, since there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, it is prayed before your good- self that the penalty proceedin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....documents were not considered by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In any case this portion of deduction was denied on estimated basis, therefore, the above penal action is not called for. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 7. After considering the rival submissions we find that deduction under section 80-IC has been held to be allowable by the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in ITA No. 779/Chd/2008 and others (reported in Asst. CIT v. Octave Exports [2014] 36 ITR (Trib) 1 (Chandigarh)) wherein the issue regarding part of denial of deduction has been discussed at....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n given by the assessee was found to be incorrect and consequently profit to the extent of Rs. 25,03,572 was worked out to be not eligible for deduction under section 80-IC of the Act. The rel evant para 6 in this regard of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) reads as under : "6. In view of the above discussions, though the conclusions of the Assessing Officer that no manufacturing activities were carried out by the appellant at Parwanoo and that further the appellant was not legally entitled to deduction under section 80-IC could not be accepted, in the place of the discrepancies with regard to some vehicles remaining unexplained, as discussed in the preceding p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and also before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in view of the discrepancies in mentioning the numbers of various vehicles and also co-relating the information received from the Commissioner Excise and Taxation, Himachal Pradesh with the facts of the case, we are in conformity with the findings of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in this regard. We, accordingly uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and in view of the fact that the assessee has failed to reconcile the passage of vehicle through the barrier carrying the raw material, certain disallowance of deduction under section 80-IC is merited in the case. The total cost of raw material claimed to b....