TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (12) TMI 1153
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls) has erred in dismissing the appeal and upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in levying penalty of Rs. 51,01,720 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income- tax Act, 1961. 2. That the worthy Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) while confirming the levy of penalty has misinterpreted the fact with regard to the bona fide claim of the assessee and also overlooked the fact that it was a debatable issue for a long time and even the instructions received from the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (North West Region), Chandigarh regarding the withdrawal of appeal in respect of penalty and wrong claim of deduction under section 80-IB have been ignored on flimsy ground. &nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "Regarding the justification of claim of deduction under section 80-IC on export incentives of Rs. 1,49,87,933, it is submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) the claim of deduction under section 80-IC to the extent of above income is surrendered for addition subject to no penalty. Further, the appellant also surrenders the claim of deduction under section 80-IC on the interest income of Rs. 21,548 credited in the profit and loss account. Thus, it is submitted that the balance claim of deduction under section 80-IC of Rs. 47,69,083 may kindly be gr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not attracted. Reliance was placed on various case law particularly on the findings of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC). 6. After considering these submissions the learned Commissioner of Income-tax noted the chronology of events at pages 19 and 20 of his order and observed that the assessee tried to evade the persistent queries made by the Assessing Officer regarding the claim of deduction under section 80-IC. It was further observed that even despite queries on November 22, 2011 regarding deduction to the extent of Rs. 1,49,87,933 on account of incentive, either evasive reply was given or the assessee tried to justify the deduction. It was also noted that export in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cerned, the pronouncement of a judgment which has been challenged before the Supreme Court is not law of the land and the assessee was still entitled to make claim for deduction because there were judgments from other High Courts favouring the assessee on the issue and therefore issue was debatable under the records. He referred to the decision of the hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT v. Eltek SGS P. Ltd. [2008] 300 ITR 6 (Delhi) and CIT v. India Gelatine and Chemicals Ltd. [2005] 275 ITR 284 (Guj). 9. He further submitted that the assessee is not a technical person and he would sign a return whatever is advised to him, he also contended that it cannot be said that the assessee kept on concealing particulars because the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e same would not attract penal action and in this regard relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers P. Ltd. v. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC). In any case, the assessee can not be penalised for the mistake committed by the consultant. He further submitted that since everything was disclosed, therefore, decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) is fully applicable. 11. On the other hand, the learned Departmental representative strongly supported the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). He submitted that once the issue was finally settled by the Supreme Court on August 31, 2009 in the case of Li....