TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 963
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)(c) of the Act. Both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we take up the appeal in quantum proceedings i.e. I.T.A. No.728/Lkw/2014. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts of the case in allowing the deduction of Rs. 37.38 lacs on the basis of application filed before him by the assessee, as against Rs. 27.43 lacs allowed by the Assessing Officer u/s 35(2AB) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 against the claim of Rs. 49.05 lacs, ignoring the fact that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee did not file any such Form- 3CL received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., as per Board's instruction, this appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable because of low tax effect. 5. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed. 6. Now we take up the appeal in course of proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act. In this appeal, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: "1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Lucknow has erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the penalty of Rs. 10,02,053/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, ignoring the facts that the assessee has claimed the deduction u/s 35 (2AB) in excess and that while calculating the deduction u/s 35(2AB) it did not exclude the amounts of revenue expenditure which were not eligible for the claim of deducti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on the expenses claimed by appellant u/s 35(2AB) at Rs. 32,42,889/-. The action of A.O. cannot be said justified because the A.O. has even not considered the quantum of revenue expenses allowed by Secretary, DSIR of Rs. 37.38 lacs vide letter dated 06.02.2013. It is worthwhile to mention here that the said letter was received well before the passing the present penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) of I.T. Act and the letter was submitted before A.O. by appellant during penalty proceedings but the A.O. has over-looked the quantum of revenue expenditure approval i.e. 37.38 lacs. As mentioned above the appellant has furnished each detail/ information in respect of claim of Revenue Expenditure u/s 35(2AB) before A.O. either at the time of fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee's claim deduction of the interest of expenses which has not been accepted by revenue penalty u/s 271(1)(c) not attracted, merely making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of assessee." (v) CIT Vs. Asim Kumar Agarwal (2005) 275 ITR 48 (Jharkhand) Held: That no penalty unless there is a deliberate attempt on part of assessee. Mere omission on part of assessee does not amount to concealment and if no supporting evidence are available to proof deliberate attempt, no penalty lies. (vi) CIT Vs. Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. Held: that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied as concealment in the form of disallowances of expe....