TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IT (A) has erred in upholding the demand of penalty under section 271(l)(c) of Act without any justification and contrary to every conceivable principles of law, especially when there was no concealment of income. 3. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that assessment proceedings once completed in year 2005-06, same cannot be re-opened by the department after a period of more than 6 years from the date of assessment being clearly barred by limitation. 4. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that in the present case there is no concealment of income. The Appellant claimed deduction under section 80HHC on the bonafide belief that it is entitled to such deduction on the basis of documents, which it was entitled t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed after considerable delay of more than six years, which was not permitted under the law. 8. BECAUSE the Ld. CIT (A) travelled beyond the mandate of the Act and not only rejected the lawful claim of the Appellant but also imposed penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act, which are not permissible under the law. 9. BECAUSE under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the penalty under section 271(l)(c) of the Act." 3. In this case Return of Income was filed on 31.10.2004 declaring total income at Rs. 4,37,553/-. The same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and while processing the return deduction to the extent 4,69,462/- u/s 80HHC was wrongly allowed. Therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted to the Revenue by itself would not attract penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Private Limited. (2011) 11 SCC 762: 322 ITR 158 wherein it is held that submitting incorrect claim in law does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income of assessee or concealment. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) held as under: "18. We must hasten to add here that in this case, there i....