AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d off by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2 First we will deal with the I.T.A.No. 344/Jodh/2014. The only ground raised in this appeal reads as under: "On the facts and in the present circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty of Rs. 4,38,596/- imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act." 3. From the above ground, it would be clear that only grievance of the Department in this appeal relates to the deletion of penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' in short). 4. Facts relating to this issue, in brief, are that the assessee derived income from business of manufacturing and trading of P.P. Fabricks, P.P. Sacks & HDPE sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from total Turnover as per profit and loss account and as Form No.56G Rs. 1,70,63,350 (22,91,83,541-21,21,20,191). The A.O. has also relied upon the findings given in the assessment order and reproduced the same in the penalty order as under: "The submission given by the A.R. regarding the calculation of exemption claimed is not acceptable with regard to the working of Total Turnover. The reduction of total Turnover by Rs. 1,70,63,350/- is not acceptable as no such provision is laid down in section 10B for allowing any kind of reduction while calculating the Total Turnover of an undertaking claiming exemption u/s.10B . the section only defines 'Export turnover', it nowhere defines what comes under Total Turnover and what is to be excl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he ld. CIT(A)and the only issue taken in the appeal was as to whether freight and insurance of Rs. 89,00,509/- will be part of total turnover while computing deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07/10/2010 directed the Assessing Officer to re-compute the deduction u/s. 10B of the Act after excluding the freight and insurance for eligible export from the turnover. Thus, ultimately the allowable exemption u/s. 10B of the Act was worked out to Rs. 3,13,30,627/- and disallowance of Rs. 13,03,019/- was made on account of claim of exemption u/s. 10B of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings in respect of the said disallowance. The submission of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Total Turnover and exclusion of other income. Further, it is also seen that the A.O. has levied the penalty merely placing reliance on the findings given in the assessment order as well as in the appellate order. In this connection it may be mentioned here that it is well settled that assessment proceedings and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct and as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ananthraman Veerasinghaiah & Co. Vs.CIT 23 ITR 457, the findings in the assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as conclusive for the purpose of the penalty proceedings. It is also well settled that the criterion and yard sticks for the purpose of imposing penalty u/s.271 (1 )(c) of the Act are different than those applied for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e neither concealed the income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was further stated that only on this basis that the claim for exemption u/s. 10B of the Act was reduced by the Assessing Officer, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act was not leviable. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product (P) Ltd. reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158. 8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. On a similar issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Produ....