TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee, Shri Ronak G. Doshi, at the outset, claimed that on identical facts, for Assessment year 1999-2000 and 2001-02 vide order dated 07/01/2011, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) was deleted by the Tribunal in ITA No. 4128/Mum/2008 and ITA No.3154/Mum/2007. This factual matrix was consented to be correct the ld. DR, Shri M. V. Rajguru. No contrary facts were brought to our notice by either side. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the order of the Tribunal dated 07/01/2011 for ready reference:- "In both these appeals the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) have been challenged for confirming the levy of penalty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in relation to the Managing Director. He submitted that, in fact, the Managing Director was to be appointed by Boots Company, PLC because the joint venture partner's wanted its own representative as they were 51% shareholders in the joint venture of the assessee company. However, later on their representative Mr. Khoo Seng Chee Joseph resigned and, therefore, assessee company proposed the name of Mr. Tarun Pasricha to be appointed as the Managing Director and this proposal was accepted by the foreign partner. In this regard he referred to pages 55 to 57 of the paper book which is a copy of the Board's Resolution accepting the resignation of Mr. Khoo Seng Chee Joseph and appointment of Mr. Tarun Pasricha. Since the representative of the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors 212 CTR (SC) 432 and the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Thirupathy Kumar Khemka & Another vs. CIT [291 ITR 122]. 7. We have considered the rival submissions carefully and find that, admittedly, the Managing Director was to be appointed by M/s. Boots Company, PLC as per the Shareholders Agreement and, in fact, the appointment was made accordingly. However, the representative of M/s. Boots Company, PLC, Mr. Khoo Seng Chee Joseph resigned and later on the representative of the assessee company Mr. Tarun Pasricha was appointed as the Managing Director. His appointment as well as the fact of resignation of Mr. Khoo Seng Chee Joseph has been duly reported in the Dir....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Thirupathy Kumar Khemka & Another vs. CIT [supra], the assessee had not disclosed the amount of interest u/s.244A received on the refund of income tax in his income. Further some credits were also not explained and that is why levy of penalty was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. Whereas in the case before us, the genuineness of the expenditure is not doubted. The only problem is that originally the assessee was not to bear this expenditure. However, because of business necessity or legal complications to change the terms of Shareholders Agreement, assessee chose to make the payment of the Managing Director, it cannot be said that assessee has filed any inaccurate particulars or concealed any income. If a legitimate claim has been ma....