TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 403
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s have been raised by the Revenue :- i) The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts on deleting levying on penalty of Rs. 15,03,270/- ,u/s.271(l)(c) of the LT. Act. ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. iii) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 2. Briefly stated facts as culled out from the records are that assessee is a Co-op. Society engaged in the business of banking activities and filed its return of income on 12/07/2008 declaring total income of Rs. 23,45,990/-. Assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the impugned penalty by observing as under :- 2.4 I have carefully considered the rival contentions and I'm inclined to agree with the contentions raised by the appellant. With regard to the claim of gratuity payment it is seen that the amount has been actually transferred to the account of the outgoing employee. The reason for disallowance was only due to the fact that the payment has come from the account of the appellant maintained with Life Insurance Corporation of India. The disallowance has been made on purely technical reasons. It is not the case of the assessing officer that any crucial facts have been hidden by the appellant or that the claim was not bonafide. I am therefore of the view that the levy of penalty on the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the ld. Authorised Representative (AR) relied on the order of ld. CIT(A). 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us and gone through the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench relating to quantum addition in the case of assessee. In this appeal Revenue has challenged the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the penalty of Rs. 15,03,270/- imposed by ld. Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. We find that the impugned penalty of Rs. 15,03,270/- was imposed by ld. Assessing Officer on the following two additions confirmed by ld. CIT(A):- i) Disallowance on gratuity payment of Rs. 3,15,933/- ii) Disallowance on depreciation on investment of Rs. 45,49,019/- 8. We further observe that in the quantum app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ference between the cost of units and the NAV on the last day of the accounting year on account of valuation . Before us the Id. A.R. has submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the Assessee in view of the decisions cited by the Id. A.R. We find that the aforesaid decisions were not before CIT(A) when the issue was decided by him. We therefore feel that the issue needs to be re-looked at his end in view of the various decisions cited by Id. A.R. We therefore remit the issue back to the file of CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh in the light of decisions cited by AR and in accordance with law. Needless to state that CIT(A) shall granted adequate opportunity of hearing to both the parties. In the result, this ground of Assessee is all....