AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1008
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and sale of sugar in its two units, namely, Upper Doab Sugar Mills & Unn Sugar Complex and Alcoholic Products in two units, namely, Shamli Distillery & Chemical Works & Pilkhani Distillery & Chemical Works and was following mercantile system of accounting and closed its accounts on 31st March, 2009 for the year under consideration. The assessee filed return of income though e-filing u/s 139(1) of the Act on 29.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs. 53,41,386/-, however, the taxable income after allowing and set off of brought forward losses was nil. The assessee claimed that no tax was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is made, that the Assessee has filed inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of income, Penalty u/s 271(1)(C) is not laviable. In order to satisfy either of these two criteria, the court has decided that for levy of penalty u/s 271 (l )(C), either there should be ex-facie bogus claim of expense, deduction by the assessee or there should prima facie no two different opinion on the issue of addition. In the light of above, I would now examine the facts of the case, whether either of these two criteria is satisfied in respect of three item of additions separately:- . 1) Addition on account of provision of Interest on Sugar Development fund (SDF) for Rs. 14,45,710/-. The assessing officer disallowed the interest paya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ada collection and interest on accumulated fund:- Ld. AR's main argument against the non levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on this quantum of addition is that at the time of filing of income tax return, there was direct decision on the issue of the Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Bijli cotton Mills 116 ITR 60 (SC) where it was held that Dharmade Collection is not a revenue receipt in the hands of the assessee. Further, the appellant has filed appeal against the order of ITAT on this issue and under Rule 16 of I. T.Rule, 1962 read with See 158 A( 1) of the Act, the appellant has filed form no.8 for other years and the Assessing Officer has accepted the same vide order dated 14.12.2011 for A.Y 2003-04, CIT(A) has given the relief to the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gly, I am of the view that penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is not leviable on this addition also." 5. The revenue, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us against the deletion of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the AO and submitted that the law is very clear that even if there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the ground of disclosure, but it is a claim appears to be ex-facie bogus, it will still attract penalty provisions. He submitted that the AO has rightly levied the penalty which the ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting the same. Therefore, he wants us to set aside the order of the ld. CIT (A) and restore that of the AO. 7. Ld. AR for the assessee, while relying ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....guidelines framed by Excise Department; and the unused hologram is of no use for business purpose, therefore, its market value is nil. Therefore, the assessee has written off unused hologram at the end of the year consistently. We find that during the instant assessment year, the AO has made addition and, at first appellate stage, the CIT(A) gave relief to the assessee. However, ITAT held that unless the hologram is destroyed, the same cannot be written off. We find that the ld. CIT (A) observed that at the time of filing Income Tax return, the decision of ITAT order was not there, hence, the assessee was of bonafide belief that writing off of unused hologram is legal since it cannot be used next year and we concur with the said view of the....