2011 (8) TMI 1264

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1999-00 and ₹ 5,20,61,983/- for A.Y. 2000-01 by invoking the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance/additions on issue of deduction u/s 80-I and 80-IA of the Act. Same was opposed before the CIT(A) and various contentions were raised on behalf of the assessee. Having considered contentions raised on behalf of the assessee, penalty has been deleted by the CIT(A) in both the years. Same has been opposed by revenue. The issue is same in both the years. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Pan masala and gutka. During the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act assessee's claim of deduction u/s 80-I and 80-IA in respect of undertakings manufacturing Gutka and Pan Mas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Vs. ACIT (38 ITED 285) held that similar deduction on Zarda Yukt Pan Masala was available in the public domain. As such the assessee was under bonafide belief that the claim of deduction u/s 80-IA was appropriate and sustainable. As stated above the Tribunal has decided the issue against the assessee in quantum proceedings and the matter is sub-judice before the High Court after being admitted on question of law. According to the assessee, the question of law has been admitted by the Bombay High Court and the matter is sub-judice for hearing on merits. Earlier, Special Bench of Tribunal was constituted to decide whether 80-IA deduction was available to the assessee or not. In this background, the learned AR pointed out that the Tribunal i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he present proceedings, have been held by the Hon'ble High Court to be involving a substantial question of law, in our considered opinion, the penalty is not exigible under this section. We, therefore, order for the deletion of penalty". In view of above, it was submitted by the learned AR that the penalty in question was rightly deleted by the CIT(A). On the other hand, the learned DR relied upon the order of the Assessing officer on the point of penalty. 4. After going through the rival submissions and perusing the material on record, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the CIT(A) who has deleted the penalty in question for both the years. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Pan Masala a....