2016 (5) TMI 695

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10-11, claiming the following substantial questions of law:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty when the assessee had claimed expenses in express violations of Section 40(a) (ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961 especially in view of decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT v. Zoom Communication Service Pvt. Ltd.? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in deleting the penalty holding that there was no intention to conceal income whereas mens rea was not held as essential ingredient by the Apex Court in Dharmendra Textiles Processors for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)? 2. Briefly stated, the facts necessar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. Feeling aggrieved by the order, Annexure A-2, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [for brevity "the CIT(A)"]. The CIT(A) vide order dated 16.7.2014 (Annexure A-3) allowed the appeal and deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Assessing Officer. Against the order, Annexure A-3, the revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A-4) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The primary issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the penalty under Section 271 (1)(c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ue to inadvertent mistake on the part of the counsel of the assessee, the amount of capital gains tax and property tax paid were not added back resulting into refund. The Tribunal had observed that by not adding back the amount, no one had been benefitted as the assessee is an undertaking of Government of Punjab. The relevant findings recorded by the Tribunal read thus:- "4. We have heard Shri Vivek Mongia Ld. DR and have also perused the materials available on record. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is observed that the assessee is a Cooperative Society and an undertaking to Government of Punjab. It is claimed that the assessee had engaged a professional for preparing and filing of the income tax return. It is stated ....