2012 (5) TMI 673

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....DR. ORDER PER G.D.AGRAWAL, VP : The only ground raised in this appeal by the assessee is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 18,79,303/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. We have heard both the parties and have perused the material placed before us. In this case, originally, the ITAT had quashed the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the technical g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....; 4. In the quantum appeal, learned CIT(A), vide his order dated 8.2.2011, deleted the addition of Rs. 3,82,636/-. Therefore, the penalty in respect of the addition which has been deleted cannot survive. Now, the only dispute which remains is whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) can be levied in respect of reduction in the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80HHC. In our opi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iculars regarding the income of the assessee. In the case of the assessee, her claim for deduction under Section 80HHC was not found to be not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the Assessing Officer himself has allowed the deduction under Section 80HHC but, he merely recomputed the quantum of the deduction claimed under Section 80HHC. Merely because the Assessing Officer has changed the quant....